Kenny denies Labour claim on FG child benefit cut

Euroland

Apparently crooks from FG want to slash child benefit even further than the crooks from FF:


Kenny denies Labour claim on FG child benefit cut

The Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny has rubbished claims by the Labour Party that it will cut €252 a year from child benefit.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/election/news/kenny-denies-labour-claim-on-fg-child-benefit-cut-493866.html

whippet

Euroland wrote: »

Apparently crooks from FG want to slash child benefit even further than the crooks from FF:


Kenny denies Labour claim on FG child benefit cut

The Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny has rubbished claims by the Labour Party that it will cut €252 a year from child benefit.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/election/news/kenny-denies-labour-claim-on-fg-child-benefit-cut-493866.html

I am in reciept of Child Benifet and I don't need it. It has to be cut somewhere. Waste of bloody money.

It should be taxed at the very least if not means tested

Euroland

whippet wrote: »

I am in reciept of Child Benifet and I don't need it.

Send it to me then , I wouldn't mind to get extra cash



Think about the families in need who depend on this money. I would prefer social welfare to be cut by 40% and public salaries capped at 100K and slashed by 25%, but still giving parents the child benefit.

Killer Pigeon

whippet wrote: »

I am in reciept of Child Benifet and I don't need it. It has to be cut somewhere. Waste of bloody money.

It should be taxed at the very least if not means tested

The thing is some people do need it. I think the fact that it is not means tested defies logic.

RobbieTheRobber

Euroland wrote: »

Think about the families in need who depend on this money.

Ok maybe some families depend on it so cutting it would be bad, i guess i cna see your point

Euroland wrote: »

I would prefer social welfare to be cut by 40% .............. but still giving parents the child benefit

Wait what?

Many people who get C B dont need it, I doubt the same could be said for social welfare!

But You want to keep child welfare but cut 40% from the lowest rung of the social ladder, are you suggesting that people on social welfare dont need money?

RobbieTheRobber

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

The thing is some people do need it. I think the fact that it is not means tested defies logic.

Means testing adds extra cost though as there is considerable work involved.

Which is why the governemnt here usually prefers the easier option of across the board cuts.

zig

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

The thing is some people do need it. I think the fact that it is not means tested defies logic.

Most dont need the amount they are getting, i see that first hand from people who will freely admit that to me, the main people in need are people that are in huge negative equity, and if thats the case child benefit shouldnt be paying towards an overpriced house, instead the problem of the mortgage should be addressed.
It needs to be cut by alot tbh.

RobbieTheRobber

zig wrote: »

Most dont need the amount they are getting, i see that first hand from people who will freely admit that to me, the main people in need are people that are in huge negative equity, and if thats the case child benefit shouldnt be paying towards an overpriced house, instead the problem of the mortgage should be addressed.
It needs to be cut by alot tbh.

So who should take the hit on the mortgage cut, the banks or the irish state(who will also take the hit if the banks take the cut)?

Pete_Cavan

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Means testing adds extra cost though as there is considerable work involved.

Which is why the governemnt here usually prefers the easier option of across the board cuts.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; the government should move people from unnecessary administration positions in other department and put them in social welfare and means test everything (child benefit, medical cards, pensions, EVERYTHING). Means testing would save a fortune and would see only those who really need it receive money from the state. Redirecting staff would save a fortune by not having to pay off these staff who would otherwise be fired and would give better value for money because they are now doing a necessary job.

sollar

Plenty of people out there who would like to see it cut too though.

Euroland

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

But You want to keep child welfare but cut 40% from the lowest rung of the social ladder, are you suggesting that people on social welfare dont need money?

Currently people on social welfare (especially families with kids) live much better than the working families on low to middle incomes. So slashing 40% from the current social welfare levels would bring them to the same level, stop them from abusing the system, and would finally force them to start looking for the jobs. I would also impose the term cap for social welfare (maximum of 3 years in a row or maximum of 10 years over life).

MisterAnarchy

Euroland wrote: »

Apparently crooks from FG want to slash child benefit even further than the crooks from FF:

You do realise that the country is broke and that Ireland has a ridiculously high Child benefit rate as well as alot of other areas that are grossly overpaid .
Everything must be brought back into line with our EU neighbours.
It seems nobody wants cuts ,we may as well just start up the printing presses and spend our way out of bankruptcy.:rolleyes:

Cookie_Monster

I really don't understand the logic of giving people massive amounts of money to have more and more kids.

It needs to be cut, but in such a way that it penalises those with fewest kids the lest. For example leave first child at current rate, cut 25% from second child and remove completely from 3rd or more. There is no reason for the state to support more than 2 children given the level of overpopulation in the world currently. We (and every other country) need to shift our attitude towards population management the number of kids people are having.

Obviously given the size of Ireland compared to other nations someone will argue why should it apply to us, but its for exactly the same reason as the bag levy or smoking ban, its about attitudes not impact.

Einstein

Is it me, or are people arguing about a fiver a week?

The Waltzing Consumer

Euroland wrote: »

Currently people on social welfare (especially families with kids) live much better than the working families on low to middle incomes. So slashing 40% from the current social welfare levels would bring them to the same level, stop them from abusing the system, and would finally force them to start looking for the jobs. I would also impose the term cap for social welfare (maximum of 3 years in a row or maximum of 10 years over life).

I am not sure where you get your information that families on SW live much better then low to middle income families. If you have some sources, it would be interesting, if not, I would have to assume it is a statistic you have just invented.

You also think slashing SW by 40% would bring them to same level as families on low to middle income. So do low to middle income familes bring in, SW is 186 a week now, so 40% off would bring it down to just over a 100 a week. Do people in low and middle income families only bring in 100 Euro a week? Again, I think you are plucking these figures without any basis.

A cap on SW? I would not completely disagree but a small country with limited resources cannot do such a thing.

The Waltzing Consumer

Einstein wrote: »

Is it me, or are people arguing about a fiver a week?

Yes, it does seem that. As is typical, money grows on trees, and the only money that should be cut should be other peoples money and not theirs.

Einstein

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Yes, it does seem that. As is typical, money grows on trees, and the only money that should be cut should be other peoples money and not theirs.

Not really sure what side of the fence you're on tbh, but if someone that has children cant afford to lose €5 a week, they shouldn't have had a child in the
first place.

Annoys me how people keep squeezing out the babies and expect the government to just give them the extra money.

pocketvenus

Euroland wrote: »

Currently people on social welfare (especially families with kids) live much better than the working families on low to middle incomes. So slashing 40% from the current social welfare levels would bring them to the same level, stop them from abusing the system, and would finally force them to start looking for the jobs. I would also impose the term cap for social welfare (maximum of 3 years in a row or maximum of 10 years over life).

Have you seriously takled to people living on SW at the moment or are you just taking the word of certain media and Gov section's as fact.

I can tell you not everyone on the SW recives all the benefits, no the people who do are the one one never worked a day in their lives, are well able able to play the system, not the poor unfortunate people who have over the past 2 years found themselves redundant. People who have paid taxes for years and now need some help. People desperate to take any job.

You obviouly must be working away without the threat of redundnacy hanging over your head or would would def be chanitng a different tune. I would love for you to live on €188 a week & tell me how you would pay ever increasing gas and esb bills, put food on the table etc. And you want this to be reduced to about €112 - try step into the real world at the moment.

True cost of living is not coming down at all and actually is on the increase again.

What needs to be done is for our Gov to take the list of people on the dole and look at those who have never worked, do proper investigations into doubl, triple claiming and all the other areas that are being abused and tackle those people first. There are some savings to be made there and then see what cuts need to be made instead of painting everyone with the one brush.
People working would not like it is the Gov said well everyone will be taking cuts of 40% regradless of your income.

I am sick of people lucky enough to retain their jobs taking the attitude of people on the dole as scum and drain on society, it they think it is such a grat life well go down to a dole office and choose one of the engineers, architects, business people there and swap places with them.

There are hardly any jobs out there at the mo, if there are there are hundreds, even thousands applying for maybe 10-50 jobs, you are lucky if you get an letter never mind a interview. I know a friend of mine has been told she is overqualified for jobs and why did she bother applying. Even with "dumbing down" her cv and nearly having to take off her qualification which are 2 honours degress, 1 diploma and other certifications in a wide range of areasby the way and she had only managed to get 3 interviews in 19 months despite applying for every job going.

baldbear

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/man-with-56-convictions-on-euro44000-gets-legal-aid-2538080.html

Child benefits need to be cut for those who don't need it, the wealthy, and those who take advantage of it like thisguy in the story above.

Euroland

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I am not sure where you get your information that families on SW live much better then low to middle income families. If you have some sources, it would be interesting, if not, I would have to assume it is a statistic you have just invented.

You also think slashing SW by 40% would bring them to same level as families on low to middle income. So do low to middle income familes bring in, SW is 186 a week now, so 40% off would bring it down to just over a 100 a week. Do people in low and middle income families only bring in 100 Euro a week? Again, I think you are plucking these figures without any basis.

A cap on SW? I would not completely disagree but a small country with limited resources cannot do such a thing.

Please don’t forget to include accommodation allowances + heating allowances + increased child benefits + free medical care + free education for the whole family (even at Trinity) + free childcare, etc.

And don’t forget that people on SW don’t pay taxes. This is why many of them drive second-hand Mercedes cars and travel a few times a year to Canaries/Spain/Turkey, etc

And now compare them with a working family with the same 2 kids, and with 1 working person on a middle income (36K Euro a year), who pays taxes, and cannot afford to educate their kids at Trinity and have full medical insurance.

After completing your calculations you would notice that the same family on SW would be much better off.

As regards to the term cap on SW, there many people who abuse the system already for 20-30 years without bothering even looking for the jobs, they just jump from one training course to another and get their payments for many years. So, this should be stopped.

Killer Pigeon

Perhaps one way to reduce spending would be to introduce a means tested Universal Citizens Allowance that would package every ounce of welfare an individual gets from the state into one. It would cut layers of civil servant bureaucracy and payroll hugely.

dark crystal

Euroland wrote: »

Currently people on social welfare (especially families with kids) live much better than the working families on low to middle incomes. So slashing 40% from the current social welfare levels would bring them to the same level, stop them from abusing the system, and would finally force them to start looking for the jobs. I would also impose the term cap for social welfare (maximum of 3 years in a row or maximum of 10 years over life).

Assuming there are jobs out there for everyone currently in receipt of social welfare, how would these people then afford childcare?

The childcare situation in this country is a joke. Not once have I heard any party discuss this issue.

Working parents on middle incomes are spending a huge portion of their income on childcare and for these people, a universal cut in child benefit would devastate them financially.

As for those on SW, I suspect many, if not most, of them would prefer to be working for a wage every week. If you put in place a childcare scheme, there would then be an incentive for those parents to work. Many people on SW are scared that working will leave them worse off - introducing state subsidised childcare would therefore increase the workforce, create jobs and get people who rely on benefits out of the welfare trap.

This country is so shortsighted on the issue of childcare, it's astounding in this day and age. I wish politicians would take a wider view of the issue and look at other European countries who employ such schemes.

Slashing child benefit alone will not serve any longterm issues at all. Either means test it, or else redirect the money saved by a cut into a childcare scheme that will benefit all working families.

pocketvenus

Euroland wrote: »

Please don’t forget to include accommodation allowances + heating allowances + increased child benefits + free medical care + free education for the whole family (even at Trinity), etc.

And don’t forget that people on SW don’t pay taxes. This is why many of them drive second-hand Mercedes cars and travel a few times a year to Canaries/Spain/Turkey, etc

And now compare them with a working family with the same 2 kids, and with 1 working person on a middle income (36K Euro a year), who pays taxes, and cannot afford to educate their kids at Trinity and have full medical insurance.

After completing your calculations you would notice that the same family on SW would be much better off.

As regards to the term cap on SW, there many people who abuse the system already for 20-30 years without bothering even looking for the jobs, they just jump from one training course to another and get their payments for many years. So, this should be stopped.

Oh my god you really are not looking at the whole picure you think every perosn on the SW gets of all this well you are mistaken as I said take a trip to a SW office and I can tell you that alot of them are people who until recently are hard working, honest people struggling to survive. Not everyone gets medical cards, fuel allowance and Trinity are you joking maybe some people can pull that but I know for a fact that there are houseolds in this country who have a 2 parents working who managed to pull grants for their children 3rd level education.

The scenaro you describe above are the livers on the dole, the scammers or other sections of society who abuse the system not the majority of people who have currently joined the cue. It is the welfare scammers that need cuts but applying them to people who have worked and contributed to society is unfair. Yes I am realistic cuts needs to be be made but they need to be applied fairly.

I would not wish this on anyone but maybe a redundancy would teach you some reality or maybe have savings wiped out and you rely on €188 a week and we will soon see how you manage to buy a MB, go on hols etc. I am not being nasty but taking a small rep of a demographic and applying that culture to everyone is just not on.

Sir Oxman

Child benefit should be means tested, it is universal at the moment, which is insane.
Target those who actually need it.

Lockstep

Euroland wrote: »

And don’t forget that people on SW don’t pay taxes. This is why many of them drive second-hand Mercedes cars and travel a few times a year to Canaries/Spain/Turkey, etc[

I hear they also snort their crack with rolled up €100 notes and start fires with Monet paintings.

Sir Oxman

pocketvenus wrote: »

Oh my god you really are not looking at the whole picure you think every perosnn on the W gest of all tis well you are mistaken as I said take a trip to a SW office and I can tell you that alot of them are people who until recently are hard working, honest people struggling to survive. Not everyone gets medical cards, fuel allowance and Trinity are you joking maybe some people can pull that but I know for a fact that there are houseolds in this country who have a 2 parents working who managed to pull grants for their children 3rd level education.

The scenaro you describe above are the livers on the dole, the scammers or other sections of society who abuse the system not the majority of people who have currently joined the cue. It is the welfare scammers that need cuts but applying them to people who have worked and contributed to society is unfair. Yes I am realistic cuts needs to be be made but they need to be applied fairly.

Agreed.
Unfortunately Euroland is making the classic empty-headed mistake of dumping '000's of people into the same category.

pocketvenus

gambiaman wrote: »

Agreed.
Unfortunately Euroland is making the classic empty-headed mistake of dumping '000's of people into the same category.

Scary thing is and I hate to say it alot of people believe this now as it pushed by media, all the Gov parties and other sections of this country.

As I said 18 months on €188 or less a week should fix that.

RobbieTheRobber

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again; the government should move people from unnecessary administration positions in other department and put them in social welfare and means test everything (child benefit, medical cards, pensions, EVERYTHING). Means testing would save a fortune and would see only those who really need it receive money from the state. Redirecting staff would save a fortune by not having to pay off these staff who would otherwise be fired and would give better value for money because they are now doing a necessary job.

Perhaps everything should be means tested, but to effect immediette cuts means testing is not the way.

The only way you could apply means testing rapidly is to cut everyone and then force everyone to apply if they feel entitled to it, this would still take quite a period of time with applicatiosn being processed and possible appeal processes.
For the poorest in our economy who would rely on CB, a period of two months while they wait for the processing of applications would be quite considerable.

humanji

Euroland wrote: »

Apparently crooks from FG want to slash child benefit even further than the crooks from FF:

Kenny denies Labour claim on FG child benefit cut

Any reason you believe Labour over FG?

RobbieTheRobber

Euroland wrote: »

Currently people on social welfare (especially families with kids) live much better than the working families on low to middle incomes. So slashing 40% from the current social welfare levels would bring them to the same level, stop them from abusing the system, and would finally force them to start looking for the jobs. I would also impose the term cap for social welfare (maximum of 3 years in a row or maximum of 10 years over life).

There are around 300,000 people i believe looking for jobs in this country at present i really dont think an incentive to work is the issue. :rolleyes:

As for the rest of your post stats please, there are always exceptiosn to the rule but I really dont think the majority of people on welfare are better off than the working.

bamboozle

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

The thing is some people do need it. I think the fact that it is not means tested defies logic.

+1

pocketvenus

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

There are around 300,000 people i believe looking for jobs in this country at present i really dont think an incentive to work is the issue. :rolleyes:

As for the rest of your post stats please, there are always exceptiosn to the rule but I really dont think the majority of people on welfare are better off than the working.

Exactly but I think no matter how much you explain that it falls on deaf ears.

I heard a women on a radio station this morning who is in the usual situation of finding it hard to pay her mortgage etc and was complaing about the way people were treating her and how she should be entitled to be treated with respect and walk away from some of her debt.

She then went on to basically infer that people on the dole do not deserve any standard of living, repect, dignity and why should they expect it when they have done nothing for this country.

See double standards. Failed to see the mjaority of the people on the SW were in exactly the same postion as her before redundancy hit. For a woman who fears she might loose her job she really would want to have a good think on what she says.

Denalihighway

to think the next government wouldn't seek to tackle this issue is, well...unthinkable.

I don't buy the "it will be too expensive to introduce means testing" argument. It's defeatist talk and you're letting them off the hook way to easily.

all it takes is the political will and the competence to redeploy staff to a dedicated arm of SW and lash into it. Its as simple as that.

As far as I can see child benefit rates still pretty much encourage people to have increasing amounts of kids? I know there's small print etc but jesus christ this system is absolutely insane.

I wouldn't expect any party in it's right mind to put it in their manifesto but surely, surely, any government worth their salt will look at this.

Child Benefit Monthly rate One child €140
Two children €280
Three children €447
Four children €624
Five children €801
Six children €978
Seven children €1,155
Eight children €1,332

Euroland

dark crystal wrote: »

Assuming there are jobs out there for everyone currently in receipt of social welfare, how would these people then afford childcare?

The childcare situation in this country is a joke. Not once have I heard any party discuss this issue.

Working parents on middle incomes are spending a huge portion of their income on childcare and for these people, a universal cut in child benefit would devastate them financially.

+1,

I agree with you on this subject, myself paying for my son’s childcare 1,078 Euro a month. Our childcare is very expensive and most of it is of inferior quality.

nesf

Einstein wrote: »

Not really sure what side of the fence you're on tbh, but if someone that has children cant afford to lose €5 a week, they shouldn't have had a child in the
first place.

That's bull. Quite a few parents have seen incomes collapse over the past few years with severe cuts or job losses meaning families that could easily afford to have kids a few years back suddenly need every penny they can bring in.

Lawrence1895

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Means testing adds extra cost though as there is considerable work involved.

Which is why the governemnt here usually prefers the easier option of across the board cuts.

CB should be means tested, no doubt about that. Those on a low income should get a higher rate, the wealthy ones a low rate.

But why is there a 'considerable work' involved? It shouldn't be a big deal to check someone's payslips once a year and take it from there, I suppose