The Sacred Cow of Child Benefit

later12

It is growing increasingly likely, arising simply from the fact that no Hawardian kite has been flown on the issue, and nothing has been leaked, that child benefit will(predictably) again be lowered, but remain universal, in this years budget.

What exactly is the problem with touching child benefit?

Logistics and means testing?

We have 440,000 men and women (many of them highly intelligent and appropriately qualified) on the live register, and growing. instead of having them on carpentry, building or trade courses, or sitting despairingly at home, why not :

1. Gather a truckload of them
2. Stick them in an empty building somewhere in Athlone
3. Put them on a "Fas work placement" with the Deaprtment of Social Welfare, working out who needs child welfare and who does not

As per the work placement rules they get their dole money and that is that.
Problem?

As per the constitutional issue, if one exists. Solve it.
Why not use the Emergency powers act?

This is getting completely ridiculous. i have a bad feeling the only reason this issue is not being dealt with is reticence due to fear of the electorate - particularly voting parents and grandparents. the time is over for such reticence or selfish concerns on behalf of the Fianna Fail party. This problem can be solved, and it ought to be solved as quickly, as cheaply, and as fairly as possible.

Cavehill Red

What a vacuous post.
If you feel so strongly about the means-testing work being done for free, why not offer to do it yourself?

MagicMarker

Any household with a combined income greater than 50k should not be entitled to child benefit.

There ya go, means tested sorted.

later12

Cavehill Red wrote: »

What a vacuous post.
If you feel so strongly about the means-testing work being done for free, why not offer to do it yourself?

I would but i have a job.

People sign up for these Fas work placements and back to work schemes every day.
I'm making the point that in a time where job prospects for highly qualified people are so few, and the temptation to emigrate is so great, and the lack of opportunity for people to gain work experience or keep professionally updated is also so miserable, perhaps they would benefit from this scheme. Many unemployed people i know would sign up for this.

Many of them would jump at the chance to work in the social welfare office for their dole payments.

Scofflaw

"Sacred Cow" rather than "Holy Grail", I think. Thread title amended.

moderately,
Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton

later10 wrote: »

It is growing increasingly likely, arising simply from the fact that no Hawardian kite has been flown on the issue, and nothing has been leaked, that child benefit will(predictably) again be lowered, but remain universal, in this years budget.

What exactly is the problem with touching child benefit?

Logistics and means testing?

We have 440,000 men and women (many of them highly intelligent and appropriately qualified) on the live register, and growing. instead of having them on carpentry, building or trade courses, or sitting despairingly at home, why not :

1. Gather a truckload of them
2. Stick them in an empty building somewhere in Athlone
3. Put them on a "Fas work placement" with the Deaprtment of Social Welfare, working out who needs child welfare and who does not

As per the work placement rules they get their dole money and that is that.
Problem?

As per the constitutional issue, if one exists. Solve it.
Why not use the Emergency powers act?

This is getting completely ridiculous. i have a bad feeling the only reason this issue is not being dealt with is reticence due to fear of the electorate - particularly voting parents and grandparents. the time is over for such reticence or selfish concerns on behalf of the Fianna Fail party. This problem can be solved, and it ought to be solved as quickly, as cheaply, and as fairly as possible.

So your view on how the country should be run is not to have political parties who forumlate policies and put these policies to the electorate, but instead to get all the unemployed people, put them in the geographic centre of the country and hope that they come up with the correct solution as to how we should tax and spend on a sustainable basis?

Nope, can't see any flaws in that logic.

mrsdewinter

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So your view on how the country should be run is not to have political parties who forumlate policies and put these policies to the electorate, but instead to get all the unemployed people, put them in the geographic centre of the country and hope that they come up with the correct solution as to how we should tax and spend on a sustainable basis?

Nope, can't see any flaws in that logic.

Hold on - think you've picked up the wrong end of the stick. I think the OP suggested tasking a small number of unemployed people with applying the means test.
Obvs, it'll be Mr Chopra et al who will be coming up with the correct solution as to how we should tax and spend on a sustainable basis...

SC024

In fairness look how well the political party system has done for us thus far

ArmaniJeanss

MagicMarker wrote: »

Any household with a combined income greater than 50k should not be entitled to child benefit.

There ya go, means tested sorted.

So the family with 5 children and an income of €50,300 get nothing.
Whilst the family with 2 children and an income of €49,800 cotinue to receive child benefit.

Thats not exactly 'means test sorted' is it?

MagicMarker

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

So the family with 5 children and an income of €50,300 get nothing.
Whilst the family with 2 children and an income of €49,800 cotinue to receive child benefit.

Thats not exactly 'means test sorted' is it?

Maybe not, but I didn't say how much child benefit people earning under 50k should get.

Why are two people earning 50k having 5 children?

ArmaniJeanss

MagicMarker wrote: »

Maybe not, but I didn't say how much child benefit people earning under 50k should get.

So maybe you are thinking some sort of sliding scale? Where the family with an income of €49800 get less child benefit than the family with an income of €29800.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Why are two people earning 50k having 5 children?

5 kids isn't really that excessive is it? Though there is definitely a case for looking at whether child benefit should be reduced/eliminated once a family goes above X children.

My overall point is that having a cut-off point, whether it be €50K or €80K, above which you get no child benefit but below which you get full child benefit would be a hugely unfair system. Because of the anomalies it would create for those whose income is within a couple of €K either side of the cut-off point.

Adding child benefit to income and thus making it fully taxable might be an idea, though this probably acts as a further disincentive for long term unemployed moving into low paid jobs.

thetonynator

Scofflaw wrote: »

"Sacred Cow" rather than "Holy Grail", I think. Thread title amended.

moderately,
Scofflaw

The sacred cow that has been milked way too far???

Max Power1

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

So the family with 5 children and an income of €50,300 get nothing.
Whilst the family with 2 children and an income of €49,800 cotinue to receive child benefit.

Thats not exactly 'means test sorted' is it?

We have to draw the line somewhere.

The money is just not there anymore (not that it ever really was).

A lot more fair than the current system, where a 1 child family with a combined income of €500k gets full child benefit.

randylonghorn

later10 wrote: »

We have 440,000 men and women (many of them highly intelligent and appropriately qualified) on the live register, and growing. instead of having them on carpentry, building or trade courses

What would be the point of having them on carpentry, building or trade courses? We already have far too many people qualified in this area with nothing for them to do.

later10 wrote: »

1. Gather a truckload of them
2. Stick them in an empty building somewhere in Athlone
3. Put them on a "Fas work placement" with the Deaprtment of Social Welfare, working out who needs child welfare and who does not

As per the work placement rules they get their dole money and that is that.
Problem?

Yes.

Because these people are "qualified" (though in what, if you feel they should be on carpentry, building and trade courses?) that doesn't make them qualified to conduct means tests.

And if they're being forced to do it as a type of slave labour, what the hell is their incentive to do it properly or fairly?

Bar-stool suggestion, tbh.

Pete_Cavan

Child Benefit is a huge cost to the state, and much of it is unnecessary because there are many families who can afford to raise their children without this support. Unfortunately we can not do anything about this because it cost too much to administer the means testing which defeats the purpose of doing it. Another huge cost to the state is the public service, which has an unnecessarily high number of administration positions, with many of these positions serving no purpose but yet costing us money. Of course, due to the Croke Park Agreement there can be no forced redundancies and to get rid of some of these people we would have to give them huge payoffs, which defeats the purpose of doing it. If only there was some way of dealing with both these problems....

Surely the logical solution is to move some of the people in administrative positions in other departments where they are doing nothing and put them in social welfare in order to means test our entire social welfare system. And I mean everything, child benefit, medial cards, old age pensions, college fees. This would save us hundreds of millions each year in fraudulent and unnecessary social welfare payments and ensure benefits go to those who actually need it. There would be huge savings in child benefit alone.

It would not actually reduce the cost of the public service, but we cant do that anyway thanks to the Croke Park Agreement. It would, however, make the public service more efficient and give us better value for money. Two birds, one stone.

Everybody wins, it reduces the deficit, gives taxpayers better value for money, those in need of social welfare keep their payments, public servants keep their jobs. Or is this too sensible to be done in this backwards little country of ours?

astrofool

There has to be some incentive for people to have children, regardless of income. It sounds great at the moment to cut, but it's a cost that makes sure we have people available to pay the state pension for future generations. Low birth rates are an endemic problem, that is very expensive to solve (see japan, singapore), without us disincentiving it ourselves.

Combined income of €50k is also just above two people working for minimum wage level.

A better approach would likely be extra tax breaks for childcare (incentivize women into the workplace) or to include the benefit as an extra tax credit, with a basic level available for the unemployed (I do agree at along with all benefits, the levels need to be reduced to international norms).

randylonghorn

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Surely the logical solution is to move some of the people in administrative positions in other departments where they are doing nothing and put them in social welfare in order to means test our entire social welfare system. And I mean everything, child benefit, medial cards, old age pensions, college fees. This would save us hundreds of millions each year in fraudulent and unnecessary social welfare payments and ensure benefits go to those who actually need it. There would be huge savings in child benefit alone.

That makes some sense at least ...

astrofool wrote: »

... incentivize women into the workplace ...

Why do we want to incentivise extra people (regardless of gender) into the workforce, though, at a time of record unemployment?

astrofool

randylonghorn wrote: »

That makes some sense at least ...

Why do we want to incentivise extra people (regardless of gender) into the workforce, though, at a time of record unemployment?

Because record unemployment won't last forever, and the more people we have working and paying tax, the less we have reliant on state handouts.

mike65

The first two children should get X, the third and subsequent children should get 75% of X, all rates should be reduced by 25% of X, X being the 2010 rate.

randylonghorn

astrofool wrote: »

Because record unemployment won't last forever, and the more people we have working and paying tax, the less we have reliant on state handouts.

5 years ago that would have made sense, and perhaps it will again in 5 years time (though I suspect that is way too optimistic an outlook), but it doesn't actually make sense at the moment.

What such a policy would do at the moment is benefit existing double income households, rather than taking many out of the welfare net.

optocynic

I am all for means testing of child allowance. People earning a lot (what a lot is, is up for negotiation) should not be getting any government hand-outs. And that is what child benefit is.

But if we want economic growth, prosperity, and sexual equality, a family where both parents work, should be given a helping hand in creche fees etc. Since they are actually doing what we should all be doing, working!

Also, I believe we are the only industrialised nation that gives increasing payments per child born (I could be wrong on us being the only country). This seems a little silly, and possibly a conservative, catholic church hangover of having a barrellful of kids is good!

Should we not bring this in line with other countries too?

seamus

I think people have this "means tested" nonsense all out of whack.

Means testing child benefit simply means that you're incentivising childbearing for people on lower incomes while discouraging people on higher incomes from having children.

Since those on lower incomes generally produce children who have lower incomes and who have a poorer standard of education (with the same causal link true for those on higher incomes), then the logical conlusion here is that you're creating a snowball effect where the numbers of people coming down the line on lower incomes or without a decent level of education, outstrips the numbers producing higher incomes and with better education.

Instead we should focus on incentivising child-rearing for those on higher incomes. Have a base child benefit for the first two children, which is a simple social welfare payout of €750 or whatever. But after that, link child "benefit" to tax credits. Say 500 tax credits for every child after the second one.

This means that those outside the tax net (and therefore paying little or no tax), have little incentive to produce more children, and those in the higher tax bracket have more to gain from having children while at the same time paying more tax anyway, therefore reducing the burden on the state.

This both saves money on child benefit in the long run *and* ensures a better economy in future to pay all those pensions and dole queues.

optocynic

seamus wrote: »

I think people have this "means tested" nonsense all out of whack.

Means testing child benefit simply means that you're incentivising childbearing for people on lower incomes while discouraging people on higher incomes from having children.

Since those on lower incomes generally produce children who have lower incomes and who have a poorer standard of education (with the same causal link true for those on higher incomes), then the logical conlusion here is that you're creating a snowball effect where the numbers of people coming down the line on lower incomes or without a decent level of education, outstrips the numbers producing higher incomes and with better education.

Unfortunately, your point is correct. Although it seems cold and callous. Lower income and no-income families do produce children who follow the same path. I would like to see statistics around this though.

When a college educated, working couple have to stop at one child, because they can't afford creche fees and their mortgage etc. there is something very wrong. Children should not be a luxury for the educated, and a means for the 'working class'...

Why is child benefit cash anyway? If it is truely for the children of the 'vulnerable', should it not come as food vouchers, school books, school uniforms, etc? At least then we would all know it is getting the children what is badly needed?

thesimpsons

scrap all child benefit and give us proper free education and proper health care system. scrap the extra payments for twins and multiples and scrap the back to school allownance scheme to 2yr to 5yr olds. all back to school allowances to be in the form of vouchers and at year end, all books to be given back to the school for resale. why should people get free books and uniforms and then be able to sell them on at the end of the year and thereby make a profit !!

LETHAL LADY

Does anyone commenting here recieve child benefit. I have 2 children for which I recieve 300 a month. My husband works but would be on middle income at the moment. For my family it is a very nescessary payment for food not to mind extravagances like clothes shoes etc. So my view is that it should be paid on a sliding scale. A lady who lives near to myself has I kid you not 16 children the majority of whom where born in the past ten years. Neither herself or her live in partner work and they have a council house which was knocked through to the adjoining house in order to accomodate her large family. So say if you cut it off at €50000 I would probably lose mine but she would benefit more because all her income is state benefits anyway. Is that fair.

optocynic

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Does anyone commenting here recieve child benefit. I have 2 children for which I recieve 300 a month. My husband works but would be on middle income at the moment. For my family it is a very nescessary payment for food not to mind extravagances like clothes shoes etc. So my view is that it should be paid on a sliding scale. A lady who lives near to myself has I kid you not 16 children the majority of whom where born in the past ten years. Neither herself or her live in partner work and they have a council house which was knocked through to the adjoining house in order to accomodate her large family. So say if you cut it off at €50000 I would probably lose mine but she would benefit more because all her income is state benefits anyway. Is that fair.

You have completely addressed the main problems here.
But your Husband should get tax relief and not child benefit, as should you. enabling you to join the workforce and pay for a creche if you so choose.

LETHAL LADY

optocynic wrote: »

You have completely addressed the main problems here.
But your Husband should get tax relief and not child benefit, as should you. enabling you to join the workforce and pay for a creche if you so choose.

What way do you suggest tax relief should work for parents?

seamus

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

What way do you suggest tax relief should work for parents?

Exactly like it does now, except that instead of €3,600 a year into your bank account (is it really that high?), you get tax credits to the tune of an extra €3,600 per year.

You say your husband is on a middle income, but that's not €50k. That's more like €35k. So I'm going to assume that he's on €50k, meaning that he takes home about €3,315 per month. Using tax credits instead of social welfare means that he now takes home €3,615 per month instead.

So from your point of view, it makes no difference whatsoever.

However, the woman who lives near you with 16 kids doesn't pay any tax and so tax credits are useless to her and she gets no benefit for having children.

That's harsh and simplistic (and not exactly the way that I'd do it), but that's how you use tax credits instead of social welfare.

Drumpot

seamus wrote: »

I think people have this "means tested" nonsense all out of whack.

Means testing child benefit simply means that you're incentivising childbearing for people on lower incomes while discouraging people on higher incomes from having children.

Since those on lower incomes generally produce children who have lower incomes and who have a poorer standard of education (with the same causal link true for those on higher incomes), then the logical conlusion here is that you're creating a snowball effect where the numbers of people coming down the line on lower incomes or without a decent level of education, outstrips the numbers producing higher incomes and with better education.

Instead we should focus on incentivising child-rearing for those on higher incomes. Have a base child benefit for the first two children, which is a simple social welfare payout of €750 or whatever. But after that, link child "benefit" to tax credits. Say 500 tax credits for every child after the second one.

This means that those outside the tax net (and therefore paying little or no tax), have little incentive to produce more children, and those in the higher tax bracket have more to gain from having children while at the same time paying more tax anyway, therefore reducing the burden on the state.

This both saves money on child benefit in the long run *and* ensures a better economy in future to pay all those pensions and dole queues.

Ive heard it all now . . Incentivise the rich to have more children . . Why not go a step further and medically castrate anybody below a certain income . . A society where only the rich can truely afford children . . Wow, are people actually seriously that ignorant to support such a proposal ? (evidently so).

Ah, presumption the mother of all Fk ups . .

You presume that richer families sending their children to college or higher levels of education makes for a better, more educated society ? Yes ? You think that it would be a better , more productive society with the more rich people to add to the already vast amount of ones currently running the world economies into the ground ?. . Would this be the ill advised folly of your argument ?

I suppose the main bases behind your proposal is that most people on lower incomes end up having children that dont contribute to society to the make up for the welfare that their familes enjoyed in their rearing ?

You have 0 links to back up your very broad assumptions (that poorer people usually end up having children that drain from the state), but state it as a matter of fact !

I would argue that there are plenty of rich people (banks, higher paid public servants, government officials etc etc) whom I would love nothing better then to never see their kind again. The rich of this world have shown themselves to be grossly self absorbed and ignorant to the common man, the last thing we want to do is over populate the country with even more of these kinds of "educated" people . .

You also dont seem to understand that there will always be mundane jobs (roadsweepers, bank tellers, shop assistants etc) that will represent a very large important social requirement to run any country . . Do you think a person whos mammy put him through harvard will sweep the roads or collect the trash ? No, we didnt think of that did we ?

I understand the premise of your argument, but respectfully disagree wholeheartedly with it not just on the principle behind it, the lack of facts to back up your opinions but also the short term mindedness of it from a progressive point of view. The race for scraps begins as the weakest will be left behind . . Yay, welcome to Ireland 2010 . .

Inquitus

The thing is middle income families get hit with everything, and when you add it all up it can be the difference between going under and staying afloat. If Child Benefit were removed for any couple with a combined income above 50k and guestimating 2011 budget changes and also including the last 2 years budgets:

Child Supplement gone - 1k per kid under 6
Child Benefit removed - 1.7k per kid
Income + Health Levy - Say 3% of a combined income of 70k - 2.1k
Property Tax - 1k
Additional 2010 Budget Taxation - Say 3% - another 2.1k

So if this mythical middle income family had 3 kids under 6 in 2008 they would have seen their income cut by @ 13k euro a year up to and including budget 2011. Thats some serious wedge gone, and given people are generally financially geared to a level commesurate with their income it is certainly going to hurt alot.

optocynic

Drumpot wrote: »

Ive heard it all now . . Incentivise the rich to have more children . . Why not go a step further and medically castrate anybody below a certain income . . A society where only the rich can truely afford children . . Wow, are people actually seriously that ignorant to support such a proposal ? (evidently so).

Ah, presumption the mother of all Fk ups . .

You presume that richer families sending their children to college or higher levels of education makes for a better, more educated society ? Yes ? You think that it would be a better , more productive society with the more rich people to add to the already vast amount of ones currently running the world economies into the ground ?. . Would this be the ill advised folly of your argument ?

I suppose the main bases behind your proposal is that most people on lower incomes end up having children that dont contribute to society to the make up for the welfare that their familes enjoyed in their rearing ?

You have 0 links to back up your very broad assumptions (that poorer people usually end up having children that drain from the state), but state it as a matter of fact !

I would argue that there are plenty of rich people (banks, higher paid public servants, government officials etc etc) whom I would love nothing better then to never see their kind again. The rich of this world have shown themselves to be grossly self absorbed and ignorant to the common man, the last thing we want to do is over populate the country with even more of these kinds of "educated" people . .

You also dont seem to understand that there will always be mundane jobs (roadsweepers, bank tellers, shop assistants etc) that will represent a very large important social requirement to run any country . . Do you think a person whos mammy put him through harvard will sweep the roads or collect the trash ? No, we didnt think of that did we ?

I understand the premise of your argument, but respectfully disagree wholeheartedly with it not just on the principle behind it, the lack of facts to back up your opinions but also the short term mindedness of it from a progressive point of view. The race for scraps begins as the weakest will be left behind . . Yay, welcome to Ireland 2010 . .

While I don't take the somewhsat fascist approach of Seamus, there is some common sense to his arguements. Currently, an educated and working couple can't afford to keep working and pay 2 creche fees. As such, either women are leaving the workforce, or middle class couples are only having one child. The people having the auld Irish huge families are the Lower income 'working class' ones.
Now, I am all for equal opportunities for ALL people, regardless of class or background... so, I would like to know, how many (percentage) of lower income families go on the college/middle or upper class careers?

I come back to the problem of all benefits being in cash. Why not food vouchers, school books, school clothes etc.

seamus

Drumpot wrote: »

Ive heard it all now . . Incentivise the rich to have more children . . Why not go a step further and medically castrate anybody below a certain income . . A society where only the rich can truely afford children . . Wow, are people actually seriously that ignorant to support such a proposal ? (evidently so).

Oh the poor downtrodden lower wurker....
Of course, now that you've gone and Godwinned the thread, it's pointless trying to discuss it with you, but making children a more appealing prospect for higher earners does not mean that you are trying some form of genetic cull. There is little to stop someone from improving their position and earning more money and therefore being better able to afford their own children instead of relying on the state to do it for them.

I suppose the main bases behind your proposal is that most people on lower incomes end up having children that dont contribute to society to the make up for the welfare that their familes enjoyed in their rearing ?

Most? No, of course not. But those on lower incomes, and more specifically those who are wholly or mostly dependent on state benefits, are much more likely to rear children who are equally dependent on those benefits. And they are much more likely to have more children than those in higher income brackets.

You have 0 links to back up your very broad assumptions (that poorer people usually end up having children that drain from the state), but state it as a matter of fact !

I'm stating two givens here, that I don't need to back up, because they're taken for granted:
1. People in lower "classes" have more children, on average.
2. "Classes" tend not to vary much from generation to generation - children of middle class families tend to remain middle class, etc.

You also dont seem to understand that there will always be mundane jobs (roadsweepers, bank tellers, shop assistants etc) that will represent a very large important social requirement to run any country . . Do you think a person whos mammy put him through harvard will sweep the roads or collect the trash ? No, we didnt think of that did we ?

Can you point to any part of my post which indicated that I was in favour of some kind of social cleansing? Anything that indicated that I felt that people on lower incomes should not be allowed to have children?

Here's the counter to your argument:
When we have a population which is 30% above the pension age, most of whom have had only one or two children because they couldn't afford to do otherwise, and 70% of your workforce is in the lower income bracket paying little or no tax, how do you propose that we pay for anything?

the short term mindedness of it from a progressive point of view.

Actually I'm thinking more long-term than most. Our problem isn't so much that people on lower incomes are having plenty of children. That's not a bad thing. The problem is that those on middle incomes are having less children. We need those on middle incomes to have more than two children per couple in order to maintain growth in that band. Otherwise fifty years down the line you're left with a shrunken middle class and a big divide between the ultra-rich and the "common man" (meaningless word that it is).

My original post is a general overview, not a mission statement or a comprehensive idea. To treat it as such is a little silly because I can change the parameter all I like. The intention is not to leave the lower incomes workers out in the rain, but rather bring the middle classes in from the rain.

LETHAL LADY

seamus wrote: »

Exactly like it does now, except that instead of €3,600 a year into your bank account (is it really that high?), you get tax credits to the tune of an extra €3,600 per year.

You say your husband is on a middle income, but that's not €50k. That's more like €35k. So I'm going to assume that he's on €50k, meaning that he takes home about €3,315 per month. Using tax credits instead of social welfare means that he now takes home €3,615 per month instead.

So from your point of view, it makes no difference whatsoever.

However, the woman who lives near you with 16 kids doesn't pay any tax and so tax credits are useless to her and she gets no benefit for having children.

That's harsh and simplistic (and not exactly the way that I'd do it), but that's how you use tax credits instead of social welfare.

Must correct myself lower to middle but can go over €50000 with lots of overtime if it is available. I dont disagree with you and Im no expert but with all the extra taxes coming would it all be swallowed up anyway. Sometimes money in the hand is easier to manage for people.

Drumpot

seamus wrote: »

Oh the poor downtrodden lower wurker....
Of course, now that you've gone and Godwinned the thread, it's pointless trying to discuss it with you, but making children a more appealing prospect for higher earners does not mean that you are trying some form of genetic cull. There is little to stop someone from improving their position and earning more money and therefore being better able to afford their own children instead of relying on the state to do it for them.
Most? No, of course not. But those on lower incomes, and more specifically those who are wholly or mostly dependent on state benefits, are much more likely to rear children who are equally dependent on those benefits. And they are much more likely to have more children than those in higher income brackets.
I'm stating two givens here, that I don't need to back up, because they're taken for granted:
1. People in lower "classes" have more children, on average.
2. "Classes" tend not to vary much from generation to generation - children of middle class families tend to remain middle class, etc.
Can you point to any part of my post which indicated that I was in favour of some kind of social cleansing? Anything that indicated that I felt that people on lower incomes should not be allowed to have children?

Here's the counter to your argument:
When we have a population which is 30% above the pension age, most of whom have had only one or two children because they couldn't afford to do otherwise, and 70% of your workforce is in the lower income bracket paying little or no tax, how do you propose that we pay for anything?
Actually I'm thinking more long-term than most. Our problem isn't so much that people on lower incomes are having plenty of children. That's not a bad thing. The problem is that those on middle incomes are having less children. We need those on middle incomes to have more than two children per couple in order to maintain growth in that band. Otherwise fifty years down the line you're left with a shrunken middle class and a big divide between the ultra-rich and the "common man" (meaningless word that it is).

My original post is a general overview, not a mission statement or a comprehensive idea. To treat it as such is a little silly because I can change the parameter all I like. The intention is not to leave the lower incomes workers out in the rain, but rather bring the middle classes in from the rain.

Dont know how to multiquote . . 1 up for you ! !

Firstly, you still dont quote facts, but give your personal views as some sort of "guarantee" that what you say is accurate and well informed. Heres a statistic for you, we had 95% employment when times were good which meant that only 5% of the workforce were either lazy or unable to work. This suggests that most of the people in this country are happy to work for a living and contribute to the state. You use a very small percentage of society and your own anecdotal opinions as a yardstick for backing up your views.

Secondly - You say there is little to stop people from earning more money so they can afford children ?! Perhaps, but reducing a certain section of societys ability to afford having children just makes it harder. You are discouraging a certain section of society from having children soley based on financial reasons and are justifying it based on very much opinionated statistics.

Thirdly - Perhaps classes generally tend not to change (again not sure if you base this on your own "research" or actual factual information which you continually fail to link) because certain classes hold onto their privaleges. One part of society that I despise is the rich getting their children positions over better qualified simply because of their positions of wealth and who they know. In many instances people in the lower levels of society are kept their through no fault or hard work of their own. Since you have nothing credible to back up your arguments I presume its ok for me to make broad assumptions! :rolleyes:

Lastly, the main meat of your argument seems to be that the working class should be encouraged to have more children simply because it makes financial sense, but you know that poorer people generally dont contribute to society in the monetary amount that benefits the state. Cant read it any other way and its not being uppity or morally superior, justify your views anyway you like but all I have done is spotted a fascist proposal for what it is. . The Germans justified many of these kind of principles when they were in desperate financial economic depression. You are not proposing the extinction of the poor, so to speak, but you are actively promoting the barriers to having ANY children be raised for those less off. I dont want to live in a country that starts encouraging certain sections of society to have children because while it may start out as a well intended policy, it could very well lead down a murky road, where does it stop and how do you guarantee that it stops at a reasonable juncture ?

I agree with the person who mentioned food stamps or something of that kind. Far less radical and far more appropriate in this debate. I would also be all for welfare incentives to drop the more children you have, again a variation on what you propose but not completely radical. You see, the barriers for poorer people to get into certain employment are not the same as those with more financial muscle behind them. Your idea will actually do exactly what you suggest you are trying to avoid and make the richer richer and the poor even less likely to get a position above their standing in society. Incidentally, I am a working class person, so I speak from a view of having no reason to defend the lower class other then to not consider it right to drop my morals to save a few euro and create a specified society according to monetary benefits.

senordingdong

So like all welfare benefits...we want it cut.
But not cut in a way that it would hurt the vulnerable.
Just so that it would hurt the lazy, greedy etc...

seamus

Sorry, just dipping into this. Here's one source (from the US in 2008).

http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p20-558.pdf

Page 5 shows the "final" birth rates for a variety of women. You can see from the list that the number of births per 1,000 women is notably higher amongst:
- Those who have no high school graduation or high-school only educationg
- Those who are unemployed and not working.
- Those in the lower to lower-middle classes ($0 to $50k)

Does that say that Ireland's rates are the same? No, not necessarily. But the sample size is enormous and the social similarities are such that it can be taken as a reasonable basis to consider Ireland's rates.

Drumpot wrote: »

In many instances people in the lower levels of society are kept their through no fault or hard work of their own.

I agree to an extent. Your ability to progress is more difficult if you're coming from a "lower" background, but it's not impossible. But this is the nature of the human being. People will always look after their friends and family first and everyone else second. I don't think that decrying this will solve anything. No political system can eradicate this. Socialism claims to, but it's been continually shown to suffer as badly from cronyism and nepotism as any of them.
Capitalism, our current system, provides the freedom for anyone to change their circumstances, however much work it might take.

Yes, we've all seen the boss's best mate get a €30k payrise that he doesn't need while everyone else in the company takes a pay freeze. **** happens, that's life.

Lastly, the main meat of your argument seems to be that the working class should be encouraged to have more children simply because it makes financial sense, but you know that poorer people generally dont contribute to society in the monetary amount that benefits the state.

Not "don't contribute" necessarily, but contribute less. When 50% of the population don't pay any tax in this country, I can't really come to any other conclusion. Am I wrong?

but you are actively promoting the barriers to having ANY children be raised for those less off.

Read it again. I am promoting that the barriers towards having additional children (above two) be applied on a more equitable basis, from the state's point of view. I'm advocating restoring the balance. Others are talking about means-testing the child benefit payment, which is skewing the barriers against the middle classes, for no particular reason other than to save money in the short-term.

where does it stop and how do you guarantee that it stops at a reasonable juncture ?

Slippery slope fallacy? What guarantee do you have that it would go any further than my simple suggestion?

I agree with the person who mentioned food stamps or something of that kind. Far less radical and far more appropriate in this debate. I would also be all for welfare incentives to drop the more children you have, again a variation on what you propose but not completely radical.

As I say, it's not a comprehensive outline. If it were something I was actually tasked with looking at, I'd have the research done, I'd do the sums and I'd come up with actual figures which treated child benefit in a fair and equitable way across all of society, as not as a crutch for the working classes.
In fact, working on my figures last night, I discovered that the ones I gave above were massively skewed in favour of the upper-middle class. So they're wrong, but they're just examples to illustrate how the system works.

As it stands, I proposed a cashless social welfare system more than a year ago, which I believe is the fairest way to distribute child benefit in particular.

optocynic

senordingdong wrote: »

So like all welfare benefits...we want it cut.
But not cut in a way that it would hurt the vulnerable.
Just so that it would hurt the lazy, greedy etc...

Well. Yes! that is what we all want.
But we live in Ireland, and the Greedy think the rest are Lazy and Vice Versa!!!

astrofool

These two:

1. People in lower "classes" have more children, on average.
2. "Classes" tend not to vary much from generation to generation - children of middle class families tend to remain middle class, etc.

can generally be taken as a given, they're statistics based, and a quick search on the internet will find lots of corroborating data to back it up. It's why a lot of policies are in place (e.g. grants for third level education of the less well off). Drumpot, if you want to argue a point, either show these to be wrong, or find another argument to push, as they hold true for pretty much any country in the world.

common sense brigade

Scrap the no tax for Artists . Times are tough and this should be abolished. Stop building roads and underground dart system. Put this money into hospitals and education. Once we have recovered in many years time these things could be started up again. We are no longer a wealthy country. we should be getting back to basics. the basics are health , food , education. enough for all to live in dignity and respect. Reinstate the bonus for the doles christmas payment. I have never been on dole or any social welfare payments. I earn 25,000 per year and i have a family. But I think its wrong to punish social welfare recipients esp the children at christmas time.there are many good decent families out there who want to work but are unemployed. There are many people genuinely on sick payments. struggling. its time to wake up here.i for one as a taxpayer can not support taking food from the mouths of babes. i am glad we have child benefit payment. many decent families use it correctly. I wish we lived in a country were the seriously well off took their payment and gave it to St Vincent De Paul.

optocynic

common sense brigade wrote: »

Scrap the no tax for Artists . Times are tough and this should be abolished. Stop building roads and underground dart system. Put this money into hospitals and education. Once we have recovered in many years time these things could be started up again. We are no longer a wealthy country. we should be getting back to basics. the basics are health , food , education. enough for all to live in dignity and respect. Reinstate the bonus for the doles christmas payment. I have never been on dole or any social welfare payments. I earn 25,000 per year and i have a family. But I think its wrong to punish social welfare recipients esp the children at christmas time.there are many good decent families out there who want to work but are unemployed. There are many people genuinely on sick payments. struggling. its time to wake up here.i for one as a taxpayer can not support taking food from the mouths of babes. i am glad we have child benefit payment. many decent families use it correctly. I wish we lived in a country were the seriously well off took their payment and gave it to St Vincent De Paul.

I agree with most you say. But please stop telling the people who think welfare should be reduced (especially for the Long Term unemployed) to 'Wake up'.
We are all awake, and we know we have no more money to pay as much as we do.
We need a solution here, not whinging. Give the people a christmas bonus of food vouchers, and toy vouchers for their kids. Not money.

common sense brigade

I agree vouchers for toys and food is a brilliant idea. I didnt mean to insult anybody , apologies.

optocynic

common sense brigade wrote: »

I agree vouchers for toys and food is a brilliant idea. I didnt mean to insult anybody , apologies.

I don't think you insulted anyone. But there is an implication that anyone who wants to see welfare reform and work incentives is callous and unfeeling. I personally resent this. As I want to see everyone in a job, and living well off their own incomes.

common sense brigade

so do I which is why I suggested scrapping no tax for Artists until our country is in such a position to offer such incentives again. Social welfare reform is needed, agreed 100%. Perhaps an option might be , all entitled to full dole for 12 months then in year 2 it gets cut , and in year three cut again. and so forth. At the same time the government must be providing jobs. This might tackle long term unemployment. again i do not want to insult anybody here! if my idea is stupid sorry

optocynic

common sense brigade wrote: »

so do I which is why I suggested scrapping no tax for Artists until our country is in such a position to offer such incentives again. Social welfare reform is needed, agreed 100%. Perhaps an option might be , all entitled to full dole for 12 months then in year 2 it gets cut , and in year three cut again. and so forth. At the same time the government must be providing jobs. This might tackle long term unemployment. again i do not want to insult anybody here! if my idea is stupid sorry

Well, your idea of a sliding scale (or a payment half-life) is what I always advocated. And it is what the IMF recommend too.

later12

randylonghorn wrote: »

What would be the point of having them on carpentry, building or trade courses?

I'm saying they shouldn't be on those courses, yet thousands of people are. Did you even read the first post

Because these people are "qualified" (though in what, if you feel they should be on carpentry, building and trade courses?) that doesn't make them qualified to conduct means tests.

No... You didn't read the first post, did you.

And if they're being forced to do it as a type of slave labour, what the hell is their incentive to do it properly or fairly?

They lose their benefits.

This happens in Germany, apparently, so I don't see why it couldn't happen here.

later12

I have two questions

seamus wrote: »

Means testing child benefit simply means that you're incentivising childbearing for people on lower incomes while discouraging people on higher incomes from having children.

1. Do you really think child benefit is an incentive to have children? One hundred and fifty euros per month? 5 euros per day to have a child? You think that has negatively effected condom sales?
2. Do you actually think an averagely good earner on 5,000 euros per month is going to have more kids for 150 euro per month?

Don't get me wrong, I agree entirely with the principle of encouraging more child bearing amongst the wealthy than amongst the poor, but that does not apply to child benefit as it stands, nor would translating it into tax credits. It just isn't sellable.

invinciblePRSTV

Aye Carumba! it's like a blast from the Victorian past with the way some are framing their posts here, upper class, lower class!! the ghost of McDowell haunts this thread.

Anyway let's take a cut off the Tories books here. Means Test CB, some families don't need it, others do.

Offering gobbly di gook explanations which infer class as a moral defence for subsidies to the middle classes doesn't cut it. This is one of the easier S/W cuts to make.

Pete_Cavan

later10 wrote: »

I have two questions

1. Do you really think child benefit is an incentive to have children? One hundred and fifty euros per month? 5 euros per day to have a child? You think that has negatively effected condom sales?
2. Do you actually think an averagely good earner on 5,000 euros per month is going to have more kids for 150 euro per month?

Don't get me wrong, I agree entirely with the principle of encouraging more child bearing amongst the wealthy than amongst the poor, but that does not apply to child benefit as it stands, nor would translating it into tax credits. It just isn't sellable.

???

later12

It seems to me that you can say whatever you want about the "socially disadvantaged" as long as you don't call them poor.

Well fat is fat, a spade is a spade, and poor is poor and generally the wealthier you are the more likely you are to provide the child with a strong education and a successful start to life.

lynski

Is it not possible to cut child benefit above a certain income level - say 70K - because any 2 income family earning that is only earning the industrial average wage each and have child care etc, etc, - then if you can prove you need it you can get it, ie you are on 70k but have 3 or more children in childcare with a mortgage or an ill family member or whatever criteria.
The means testing load is reduced because only those who want to be means tested for the benefit will be and the lower incomes are left alone.
There is no basis for judging someone for having more or less children based in their income level IMHO, it is entirely upto the couple family involved to decide on what they can manage, BUT a family on benefits who continue to reproduce (like the one i grew next to, seriously ill dad did not work for 20yrs, 7 children, 3 bed council hse:eek:) have got to be subject to a maximum benefit payment.

later12

lynski wrote: »

There is no basis for judging someone for having more or less children based in their income level IMHO, it is entirely upto the couple family involved to decide on what they can manage, BUT a family on benefits who continue to reproduce (like the one i grew next to, seriously ill dad did not work for 20yrs, 7 children, 3 bed council hse:eek:) have got to be subject to a maximum benefit payment.

I agree with you, but is that not merely a punitive step? A case of bolting the stable door after the horse?

I don't see how you can protect vulnerable parents and children without at the same time appearing to incentivise - though rather, I would call it wastefully endorsing - irresponsible family planning.