A vote for FG is a vote to cut Children's allowance?

caseyann

I just read this is it true?

Labour is against Fine Gael's latest proposal to cut Child Benefit by €252 p.a. for the average family.

mikemac

Read it where? Have you a link?

caseyann

feelingstressed wrote: »

Read it where? Have you a link?

Sorry here on Labour site,i haven't had a chance to check FG site on this yet.
http://www.labour.ie/a/child-benefit

paul71

So what does that mean? Do they mean average family where both parents are on the average industrial wage? If so combined industrial wage is in access of €70,000 per annum so that kind of family doesn't need it.

If it means average family living on Social welfare then it would add to poverty and certainly needs to be challanged, but as Labours site does not make this clear how do you decide?

Ray Burkes Pension

From the FG Manifesto

A More Targeted Child Allowance: In government, Fine Gael will implement a rebalanced and integrated “Child Income Support” with universal and targeted components to make the overall system more coherent and effective, and to deliver target savings of €250 million by 2014 (about 7.5% of the current total budget for child supports). The “Child Income Support” will replace Child Benefit, the Qualified Child
Increase and the child related component of the Family Income Supplement. It will be integrated into the social insurance system to support the low paid at work. We will protect the 300,000 children at greatest risk of poverty from any cuts in child income support.

Riskymove

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

"We will reduce the overall spend on child benefit during the period of government. What we will do is have a unversal paymnent which will apply to everybody.

"In other words, whether they are rich or not, they are going to get some element of child benefit but then you make a cut for those who are on higher incomes."

caseyann

Fine Gael will introduce a new “Child Income Support” payment with universal and targeted components. All families will continue to receive a universal payment and those on social welfare or low income will receive an additional targeted payment.
maintain the universal payment so that all families continue to receive support with the cost of child-raising
* protect the 300,000 children at greatest risk of poverty from any reduction in child income support
* set up an Expert Group on Child Poverty and Protection to examine how to reprioritise all child income support payments* to protect the most vulnerable children while maintaining a universal benefit for all families

There will be no reduction in Child Benefit in 2012


http://www.kierandennison.com/2011/02/fine-gael-proposal-on-child-benefit.html
*Child Income Support Payments include Child Benefit, the Qualified Child Increase that is paid along with social welfare payments and the child related component of the Family Income Supplement.


They say none in 2012 they can change their minds in 2013.lol

Bottle_of_Smoke

252 per annum? . . . so less than a fiver a week?

caseyann

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

252 per annum? . . . so less than a fiver a week?

Which is 20 euro a month.That already has been cut previously,and what if it means per child per week.So if you have two kids forty euro extra gone and so on.

dave1982

paul71 wrote: »

So what does that mean? Do they mean average family where both parents are on the average industrial wage? If so combined industrial wage is in access of €70,000 per annum so that kind of family doesn't need it.

If it means average family living on Social welfare then it would add to poverty and certainly needs to be challanged, but as Labours site does not make this clear how do you decide?

Agreed we as a family of 4 are below 1 average industrial wage combined.

70,000 is a lot of income in a year

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

paul71

caseyann wrote: »

Which is 20 euro a month.That already has been cut,and what if it means per child per week.SO if you have two kids forty euro extra gone and so on.

Yes significant if you are lower income, but I fail to understand why a means test is a sacred cow. Surely we could save a little by excluding families with incomes in excess of let say €100,000.

caseyann

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Or a low income husband and wife who have a mortgage and wife lost job and now only one wage coming in to the house.

paul71

caseyann wrote: »

Or a low income husband and wife who have a mortgage and wife lost job and now only one wage coming in to the house.

Yipes, is this 2 treads where we agree on something Caseyann? Water charges if I recall.

caseyann

paul71 wrote: »

Yipes, is this 2 treads where we agree on something Caseyann? Water charges if I recall.

I know will wonders never cease :eek::D

How did it become days when wife could stay at home with kids and now most cant?

MaceFace

caseyann wrote: »

I just read this is it true?

Labour is against Fine Gael's latest proposal to cut Child Benefit by €252 p.a. for the average family.

I thought these thread titles were just a phase the boardies were going through.
Please stop this nonsense.

To your specific question:
Don't you know its all up there on www.finegael.ie - you were told last night

paul71

caseyann wrote: »

I know will wonders never cease :eek::D

How did it become days when wife could stay at home with kids and now most cant?

Gone further than that now, lots of husbands staying at home with the kids, and wifes working.

rumour

caseyann wrote: »

I just read this is it true?

Labour is against Fine Gael's latest proposal to cut Child Benefit by €252 p.a. for the average family.

FG, labour, FF, SF, it doesn't make one bit of difference cuts are coming.

The childrens allowance will get hit first as once the election is out of the way its easy pickings. Sorry but true.

caseyann

rumour wrote: »

FG, labour, FF, SF, it doesn't make one bit of difference cuts are coming.

The childrens allowance will get hit first as once the election is out of the way its easy pickings. Sorry but true.

So what they planning to cut on their own wages.I am still trying to find their ceiling level of pay what is it 150 grand 170 grand.lol

paul71

MaceFace wrote: »

I thought these thread titles were just a phase the boardies were going through.
Please stop this nonsense.

To your specific question:
Don't you know its all up there on www.finegael.ie - you were told last night

We had already come to that conclusion Mace, if you care to read back you will see that we looked at finegeal website and pretty much agreed there is nothing in this, lower income protected everybody sorta happy.

caseyann

paul71 wrote: »

Gone further than that now, lots of husbands staying at home with the kids, and wifes working.

Ofc i meant for all case scenarios.:)

Godge

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

caseyann wrote: »

Or a low income husband and wife who have a mortgage and wife lost job and now only one wage coming in to the house.

yes, Caseyann, Fine Gael will cut some of the child benefit for higher earners in order to protect the child benefit for single parents and couples on lower incomes (both of the cases mentioned).

Labour will not cut child benefit for Michael O'Leary's or Dermot Desmond's children (do they have any?) or anyone else. As a result, Labour will have less cash available to protect other areas of spending or will be forced to increase taxes in other ways or will have no money to spend on job creation.

At the end of the day, we have a big budgetary problem. Cuts will have to happen and taxes will have to increase. We need to vote in a way that results in jobs being created, the deficit being closed and the economy restarted. If we take care of those three things, the rest of the issues will take care of themselves.

Of course we could also vote for the party that promises to look after our own personal situation best (Sinn Fein for a lot of us) but if that party doesn't have a sensible economic policy it won't matter what they promise. The difficulty for Labour is that throughout this campaign they have promised and promised not to cut this or tax that and it has left them looking without credibility when it comes to sorting out the big picture.

PauloMN

dave1982 wrote: »

Agreed we as a family of 4 are below 1 average industrial wage combined.

70,000 is a lot of income in a year

Is that right? So those peoples' kids shouldn't get the one benefit that most middle-class families can claim, even though they pump tax into this country?

paul71

PauloMN wrote: »

Is that right? So those peoples' kids shouldn't get the one benefit that most middle-class families can claim, even though they pump tax into this country?

Thats correct Paul, they shouldn't because they don't need it.

PauloMN

paul71 wrote: »

Thats correct Paul, they shouldn't because they don't need it.

How do you know? By virtue of your comment, you are making assumptions about every family's disposable income based on their income.

It is exceptionally short-sighted of you to base peoples' disposable income purely on gross income.

Personally I don't like the idea of a benefit for the country's children being means tested, but if it has to be done then so bit it. But I can't stand the bull**** from the income judges on here.... "oh poor me, 70k is loads, 100k is rich, tax the super rich" etc..

paul71

PauloMN wrote: »

How do you know? By virtue of your comment, you are making assumptions about every family's disposable income based on their income.

It is exceptionally short-sighted of you to base peoples' disposable income purely on gross income.

Personally I don't like the idea of a benefit for the country's children being means tested, but if it has to be done then so bit it. But I can't stand the bull**** from the income judges on here.... "oh poor me, 70k is loads, 100k is rich, tax the super rich" etc..

Oh dear, on €70,000 they can't feed the kids. A families disposable income on €70,000 is a result of personal choices that family has made and it is not up to the taxpayer ie. other families on the same wage to support anothers lifestyle.

Therefore you will see that I in no way support wasted taxes and come from the oposite end of the scale that your presumptuous post assumed.

Means test will come because the taxpayer can no longer afford waste, and as in any just society it will affect those who can most afford it first, and if that is not enough it will filter down to those who cannot afford. Unfortunate but reality.

PauloMN

paul71 wrote: »

Therefore you will see that I in no way support wasted taxes and come from the oposite end of the scale that your presumptuous post assumed.

Well that we can agree on. Hope it doesn't affect those who are struggling at the moment. The cost-to-work for some people includes childcare for maybe 2 or 3 kids, that's not a lifestyle choice, but results in a hell of a lot of money being taken out of the family income.

Personally, I think taking child benefits (the one and only benefit that most working families can claim) off a family like that who work hard to contribute to society, who pay a lot in taxes, is a desperate measure.

meglome

caseyann wrote: »

I just read this is it true?

Labour is against Fine Gael's latest proposal to cut Child Benefit by €252 p.a. for the average family.

A vote for FF is a vote for ruination. Oh wait we already did that.

Any party that tells you they won't cut benefits, especially to those who don't need them is lying. So maybe we call this a Vote for Labour is a vote for lies.

meglome

PauloMN wrote: »

Personally, I think taking child benefits (the one and only benefit that most working families can claim) off a family like that who work hard to contribute to society, who pay a lot in taxes, is a desperate measure.

You have got to be kidding. We are broke and you think we should give people benefits who don't (or at least shouldn't) need them?

gcgirl

But seriously why have kids if you wanna work ? Kids need their parents not child minders and think about the amount of child care your saving

paul71

PauloMN wrote: »

Well that we can agree on. Hope it doesn't affect those who are struggling at the moment. The cost-to-work for some people includes childcare for maybe 2 or 3 kids, that's not a lifestyle choice, but results in a hell of a lot of money being taken out of the family income.

Personally, I think taking child benefits (the one and only benefit that most working families can claim) off a family like that who work hard to contribute to society, who pay a lot in taxes, is a desperate measure.

Agreed but as a nation we are in a pretty desparate situation, what is it 18,000 or 20,000 civil service redundancies on the way, thats a lot of families on the average industrial wage too.

And while I can and do feel sympathy for families who will lose out on means tested child support, I feel more for those losing their salary.

PauloMN

paul71 wrote: »

Agreed but as a nation we are in a pretty desparate situation, what is it 18,000 or 20,000 civil service redundancies on the way, thats a lot of families on the average industrial wage too.

And while I can and do feel sympathy for families who will lose out on means tested child support, I feel more for those losing their salary.

Like I say, if it has to happen, so be it. It's more the assertion that a working family on 70k or whatever is loaded that irks me. If you take child benefit off a working family with kids in a creche, it might be the breaking point where one of them has to stop working. Would that be a good net result? Less income tax, less spending by that family, less people employed in childcare minding their kids as they'd be taking them out of creche.

All I'm saying is you can only push middle-income families so far. We need to be very careful how cuts are introduced, especially to something like child benefit which is for children. My view is that everyone should share the pain as regards cuts, across the board, aside from the most vulnerable of society.

Pal

is there any way we can put a stop to these rubbish threads " A Vote For "

Godge

PauloMN wrote: »

Like I say, if it has to happen, so be it. It's more the assertion that a working family on 70k or whatever is loaded that irks me. If you take child benefit off a working family with kids in a creche, it might be the breaking point where one of them has to stop working. Would that be a good net result? Less income tax, less spending by that family, less people employed in childcare minding their kids as they'd be taking them out of creche.

All I'm saying is you can only push middle-income families so far. We need to be very careful how cuts are introduced, especially to something like child benefit which is for children. My view is that everyone should share the pain as regards cuts, across the board, aside from the most vulnerable of society.

the problem is that by European standards 70k is a large salary for a family. And our IMF/German overlords will realise that and apply accordingly.

The fact that an Irish 70k family took out too big a mortgage, has poor childcare facilities, a rubbish healthcare system, and an expensive education system won't wash with the Germans.