3rd Child

Southsider1

Can anyone explain the logic behind cutting the benefit on the 3rd child in a family but not the others ie the 1st, 2nd, 4th etc. I can't find the reasoning anywhere.

ntlbell

Southsider1 wrote: »

Can anyone explain the logic behind cutting the benefit on the 3rd child in a family but not the others ie the 1st, 2nd, 4th etc. I can't find the reasoning anywhere.

Probably to discourage people who rely on child benifit from having kids if they can't afford to look after them.

I assume it's 3rd and every child afterwards.

Southsider1

ntlbell wrote: »

Probably to discourage people who rely on child benifit from having kids if they can't afford to look after them.

I assume it's 3rd and every child afterwards.

Apparantly not. they said on Newstalk that it only applies to the 3rd child and not others whether more or less. I can't think of any logic behind it.

ntlbell

Southsider1 wrote: »

Apparantly not. they said on Newstalk that it only applies to the 3rd child and not others whether more or less. I can't think of any logic behind it.

I'm sure I heard the minister for finance state during the budget and subsiquent children.

could be wrong tho.

tonedef

I heard this idea discussed a few weeks back, different rates of child benefit the more kids you have in a family, and logic behind it is to do with reusing cloths and school book, etc.. from the older childern for the younger ones.

I assume in this case the reason that child benefit for the 4th and following childern hasn't been cut by as much has to do with cloths getting worn out,etc...

casio4

Southsider1 wrote: »

Can anyone explain the logic behind cutting the benefit on the 3rd child in a family but not the others ie the 1st, 2nd, 4th etc. I can't find the reasoning anywhere.

all the children are being cut €10 on the first child, €10 on the second, €20 on the third and €10 on the fourth

Ren2k7

Southsider1 wrote: »

Can anyone explain the logic behind cutting the benefit on the 3rd child in a family but not the others ie the 1st, 2nd, 4th etc. I can't find the reasoning anywhere.

It's a strange one alright. I remember not so long ago the punditocracy in various newspapers were suggesting that having a uniform child payment for each child regardless of how many children a family (e.g. €150 for each child) had would be the most likely scenario the government would go with in the budget.

But as usual this government defies logic and common sense yet again.

wonderfulname

If it was 3rd and subsequent it would make sense as up till now benefit has jumped 37(?)euro per child from that point but if its just for the third child it seems a bit strange.

And yes dillon1 costs reduce per head the more people provided for, this works for anything, from food (bulk buying) to reusing as you have pointed out to fuel and utilities (say for arguments sake a 10% rise in cost vs. a 200% rise in welfare), Benefit per child should reduce X% for each consecutive child after the second (IMO), I believe this is the case elsewhere but for the life of me I can't remember where.

ntlbell

if that's the case yea it doesn't make a lot of sense.

fifth

To be fair, this is likely an oversight on the governments part. I would say they probably envisioned a cut for the third child and then no payments for any subsequent..or the same cut for subsequent children.

What happens after having two kids, someone gives birth to twins?

How do they decide which twin gets the cut? :pac::pac:

3DataModem

twins get triple childrens allowance....

Ren2k7

salonfire wrote: »

What happens after having two kids, someone gives birth to twins?

How do they decide which twin gets the cut? :pac::pac:

Flip a coin I guess . Bizarrely enough though, I have siblings who are twins and I never did get an answer who was on the higher rate when they were kids. As I mentioned above, a single rate for all children would be simpler.

Konata

"What do you have against 3rd children? Did a 3rd child attack you on the way home one day or something?"


Michael Noonan

Cherry Blossom

3DataModem wrote: »

twins get triple childrens allowance....

Each twin gets 150% of one childs allowance, triplets get 200% - which is double.

I had assumed it was now 4th and subsequent children on the higher rate instead on 3rd and subsequent

Speak Now

1st and 2nd child get € 140 per month.
3rd child gets € 167 per month.
4th child and on get € 177 per month.

danois

the reason for the 3rd child only is child pverty is more likely in a larger family thats why they arent cutting it for 4th 5th ect at least that what someone said on the radio

WHU

So the asumption is that familes with 3 children aren't struggling?

astrofool

WHU wrote: »

So the asumption is that familes with 3 children aren't struggling?

The assumption would be that statistically, families with 4 or 5 children will be struggling more, given a limited pot of cash.

WHU

astrofool wrote: »

The assumption would be that statistically, families with 4 or 5 children will be struggling more, given a limited pot of cash.

Families with 3 children, on the dole with no savings to fall back on are struggling as much as those with 4/5 children. The amount of benefit a family with 4/5 kids is higher and the child benefit they recieve is higher.

conorhal

Yet another black hole of creative thinking from the government.

Child benefit should have been scrapped and replaced with a scheme that provided a childcare voucher for 1-4yr olds and school age children would be supplied with a uniform, their books and one hot meal a day for free. And all that would cost significantly less then the current scheme while delivering practical ' directed benefits' to the child rather than risk cash getting squandered.

astrofool

WHU wrote: »

Families with 3 children, on the dole with no savings to fall back on are struggling as much as those with 4/5 children. The amount of benefit a family with 4/5 kids is higher and the child benefit they recieve is higher.

This statement is of course backed up by figures and some research?

WHU

astrofool wrote: »

This statement is of course backed up by figures and some research?

Yes, current year upto 30th Dec
Child benefit
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/sw19/Pages/sw19_sect4.aspx
It clearly states:
1st and 2nd chiild €150.00 per child
3rd and subsequent children €187 per child.

Job seekers benefit
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/sw19/Pages/sw19_sect6.aspx#ja
It shows, the amont per adult and also how much per child (€29.80)
So quite obviously those families with 4/5 children are receipt of more money than those with 3 children.

On pre-budget rates a family on social welfare and child benefit with 4 children recieves €3793.60 per annum more than a family with 3 children.

So, yes it is backed up by figures on the welfare.ie website http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Pages/default.aspx

bmarley

wonderfulname wrote: »

If it was 3rd and subsequent it would make sense as up till now benefit has jumped 37(?)euro per child from that point but if its just for the third child it seems a bit strange.

And yes dillon1 costs reduce per head the more people provided for, this works for anything, from food (bulk buying) to reusing as you have pointed out to fuel and utilities (say for arguments sake a 10% rise in cost vs. a 200% rise in welfare), Benefit per child should reduce X% for each consecutive child after the second (IMO), I believe this is the case elsewhere but for the life of me I can't remember where.

I agree with you totally - could never figure out how extra payments were made for third child and each child thereafter. Surely they would require first than the first and second child as they would have clothes, toys, books, uniforms etc of the children who had gone before them. It doesn't make sense at all to me. The third child is still on a higher rate of pay (than first two) even with the cuts that have taken place. Subsequent children are on a higher rate still. Is it all about encouraging people to have more children? I know of a parent who brags about all the child benefit and other allowances he gets and I have never seen him do a days work. Interesting enough he is not even originally from the Republic.

WHU

bmarley wrote: »

I agree with you totally - could never figure out how extra payments were made for third child and each child thereafter. Surely they would require first than the first and second child as they would have clothes, toys, books, uniforms etc of the children who had gone before them. It doesn't make sense at all to me. The third child is still on a higher rate of pay (than first two) even with the cuts that have taken place. Subsequent children are on a higher rate still. Is it all about encouraging people to have more children? I know of a parent who brags about all the child benefit and other allowances he gets and I have never seen him do a days work. Interesting enough he is not even originally from the Republic.

I'm not 100% but don't they do that in the UK, higher rate for the first and then less (but equal amount) for each child after.

Aard

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

1st and 2nd child get € 140 per month.
3rd child gets € 167 per month.
4th child and on get € 177 per month.

Quoted to emphasise.


---


Don't think of it as the 3rd child getting bashed; rather look at it like the 3rd child still gets far more than the first two.


Noonan's remarks are deliberately misinterpreting the figures.

bmarley

WHU wrote: »

I'm not 100% but don't they do that in the UK, higher rate for the first and then less (but equal amount) for each child after.

In Ireland, they don't give a higher rate for the first, instead they give higher rates for 3rd and subsequent children. Didn't see Aard's post above, refer to that. I'm not sure what the rates are in UK, certainly a family enjoys better benefits here.

WHU

bmarley wrote: »

In Ireland, they don't give a higher rate for the first, instead they give higher rates for 3rd and subsequent children.

Yes I know, I was agreeing with you.

gurramok

bmarley wrote: »

In Ireland, they don't give a higher rate for the first, instead they give higher rates for 3rd and subsequent children. Didn't see Aard's post above, refer to that. I'm not sure what the rates are in UK, certainly a family enjoys better benefits here.

Have a laugh.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/payments-entitlements/payments/rates.htm

Welfare recipients without a mortgage would fare far better than those welfare recipients with a mortgage as accommodation costs are higher for mortgagees.

samina

just noticed the following on the citizens information website. i never heard of this before, is this new?

If your child is 16 or 17 years of age and in full-time education you will get Child Benefit until June. You will not get another payment until your child returns to full-time education in September. The Child Benefit section will send you an application form in August. If your child returns to full-time education in September, fill in and return this application form. When you get your payment it will include any arrears due to you, including Child Benefit for July and August.

bmarley

samina wrote: »

just noticed the following on the citizens information website. i never heard of this before, is this new?

If your child is 16 or 17 years of age and in full-time education you will get Child Benefit until June. You will not get another payment until your child returns to full-time education in September. The Child Benefit section will send you an application form in August. If your child returns to full-time education in September, fill in and return this application form. When you get your payment it will include any arrears due to you, including Child Benefit for July and August.

That is correct, payment only made after stamped letter from school to state child is still attending

Stark

bmarley wrote: »

In Ireland, they don't give a higher rate for the first, instead they give higher rates for 3rd and subsequent children.

That's because we're a good Catholic nation.

Aard wrote: »

Quoted to emphasise.


---


Don't think of it as the 3rd child getting bashed; rather look at it like the 3rd child still gets far more than the first two.


Noonan's remarks are deliberately misinterpreting the figures.

Some fool was on the radio yesterday saying the cut was illegal under the Equal Status Act because it "discriminated" against the third child. Didn't get it at all when it was explained to her that the 3rd child still gets more than the 1st or 2nd. Of course then there's the alarmingly large number of people (herself included) who don't seem to realise that the money goes towards the parents of the child and not the children themselves. It's not like the 3rd child has to go to school without lunch money while all their siblings get more pocket money.

astrofool

WHU wrote: »

Yes, current year upto 30th Dec
Child benefit
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/sw19/Pages/sw19_sect4.aspx
It clearly states:
1st and 2nd chiild €150.00 per child
3rd and subsequent children €187 per child.

Job seekers benefit
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Publications/sw19/Pages/sw19_sect6.aspx#ja
It shows, the amont per adult and also how much per child (€29.80)
So quite obviously those families with 4/5 children are receipt of more money than those with 3 children.

On pre-budget rates a family on social welfare and child benefit with 4 children recieves €3793.60 per annum more than a family with 3 children.

So, yes it is backed up by figures on the welfare.ie website http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Pages/default.aspx

All you've done is quote the figures there, which have already been quoted. You have not shown that a family with 3 children is suffering more than a family with 4+ children.

You don't believe that the child benefit covers all of the cost of raising a child, do you?

Aard

Also heaven forbid they do as is done in France: you get zero for only one child. Nothing, nada, zip! And that in a country with huge taxes.

WHU

astrofool wrote: »

All you've done is quote the figures there, which have already been quoted. You have not shown that a family with 3 children is suffering more than a family with 4+ children.

You don't believe that the child benefit covers all of the cost of raising a child, do you?

1,
I never said that a family with 3 children suffer more, I said 'As much as', re-read the thread if you like.

2,
I never once said that child benefit alone covers the cost of raising a child, where on earth would you get this from?

3,
You asked me to back up an earlier statement with figures showing that a family with 4/5 children recieved more than a family with 3.
This is what I have shown you, quotes of the figures you requested, from a government website. It is not my fault if you do not like them, and then go shouting that the figures are just quotes.
And then to finish your reply with such a throw away statement only says one thing to me, you are the type of person that no matter what, likes to have the last word, well you can have it, it's obviously very important to you.