Time to replace child benefit with direct provision?

conorhal

We spend 2.5 billion euro per year on child benefit. There is talk of course about means testing benefits, the implementation of which would in all likelihood be as costly as any saving that might be achieved, so is it time for a radical rethink?

I reckon that you could axe child benefit all together and still, for 1.5 billion euro provide every child in school with a uniform, all their school books and materials for the year and a hot meal once a day and still have change left over to build state run crèches for the under 4’s.

I think we should stop handing out cash and start handing out vouchers for schoolbooks, school lunches and crèche places thus directly targeting the money towards the things it's actually supposed to be spent on.
This would also ensure that children from an underprivileged background are guaranteed to be clothed and fed (and thus incentivized to attend school).

The_Conductor

I have a 13 month old son, and will shortly have a young daughter. Both my wife and I work fulltime and simply can't afford anything anymore. Neither of us smoke or drink, and we don't go out either. A free state-run creche facility- would save us a *net* (not gross) EUR17,736 a year (693 + 785 a month creche fees for an under 1 and an over 1 child in the creche).

Abolishing children's benefit is a complete no-brainer- providing cost effective (or even free) childcare is universally made available. Giving all kids in school a meal along with their books- is overkill, but would be nice- the big issue is the extortionate cost of childcare for those of us lucky enough to actually have work........

The current system incentives those on social welfare to have as many kids as possible- while simultaneously crucifies those in employment with ridiculous childcare costs.

Sigh.......

Trampas

child benefit should be paid in any other way bar cash. as there is no certainty that the cash is been used on the child. it could be paying for cigs/drink for the parents.

free childcare, free books and copies for school, free uniform.

Godge

conorhal wrote: »

We spend 2.5 billion euro per year on child benefit. There is talk of course about means testing benefits, the implementation of which would in all likelihood be as costly as any saving that might be achieved, so is it time for a radical rethink?

I reckon that you could axe child benefit all together and still, for 1.5 billion euro provide every child in school with a uniform, all their school books and materials for the year and a hot meal once a day and still have change left over to build state run crèches for the under 4’s.

I think we should stop handing out cash and start handing out vouchers for schoolbooks, school lunches and crèche places thus directly targeting the money towards the things it's actually supposed to be spent on.
This would also ensure that children from an underprivileged background are guaranteed to be clothed and fed (and thus incentivized to attend school).

And if we did centralised procurement for uniforms and schoolbooks you could even save a lot of that 1.5 billion.

lmimmfn

this country is stupid, as was said dole heads can sit at home, have as many kids as they want and theyre at home to look after them. Those that work have to pay insane childcare costs.

Not only that they changed the tax credits a few years ago so if there is a couple and one decides to quit their job to stay at home to look after the kids then the other no longer gets their tax credits so basically the mother and father HAVE to both work and HAVE to put their kids in a creche or get a childminder.

Sweden for example has free childcare and all the mums and dads help out at the creche, thats the way it should be, no childrens allowance and free creche, after all whats 140euro a month towards 700-800euro per child for creche costs.

When my wife was pregnant last year and going to see the consultant, there was a pregnant woman there waiting also, she was on her 8th!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thebman

Godge wrote: »

And if we did centralised procurement for uniforms and schoolbooks you could even save a lot of that 1.5 billion.

Yes along as it was done properly.

The state has a history of ensuring things aren't done properly unfortunately so it would have to be policed carefully when being introduced to ensure they don't do anything stupid.

hinault

A system of stamps should be introduced as means of child benefit.
The stamps can be redeemed at clothes shops and for multiples like Dunnes Stores for food etc.

Handing out cash payments to parents makes no sense.
Cash can be spent on anything (alcohol, smokes) instead of stuff for the children.

jimmycrackcorm

I think Direct provision as an alternative would be ideal, free creche, school meals, books, uniform etc and after school care would directly apply to children and probably still save money for the state.

hinault

hinault wrote: »

A system of stamps should be introduced as means of child benefit.
The stamps can be redeemed at clothes shops and for multiples like Dunnes Stores for food etc.

Handing out cash payments to parents makes no sense.
Cash can be spent on anything (alcohol, smokes) instead of stuff for the children.

Eh.. as a kid, I remember buying my dad smokes from butter vouchers. A stamp system won't stop people using them for drink/cigs

tenchi-fan

Child benefit should be abolished and social welfare dramatically slashed.

In fact, social welfare should be capped at €80 and no additional housing supplement. Any other requirements can be given by way of direct provision.. packets of seeds for growing vegetables, subsidised chickens so people can have eggs for breakfast, 10kg bags of rice once a month.

Smccarrick, so you want €17,736 so both you and your wife can work? Would it not be better to live in a country where one income is enough to run a household and your wife can stay at home and mind the kids?
Tax would be lower because you're not taxed to the hilt to prop up the welfare system and public sector wage bill. You wouldn't be competing with councils so house prices and rent prices would stabilise.

I don't understand how one person's earnings from spending Monday-Friday, 8am-6pm (including travel) .. the majority of a day and the majority of a week... isn't enough to run a one-person household, and two people's income isn't enough to support a family.

The_Conductor

tenchi-fan wrote: »

Smccarrick, so you want €17,736 so both you and your wife can work? Would it not be better to live in a country where one income is enough to run a household and your wife can stay at home and mind the kids?

I never said I want €17,736 so both me and my wife can work. I said that is the cost of childcare for us (we don't have any family who can assist with childcare unfortunately). What I said is I agree with abolishing children's benefit- if universal childcare is made available for those in employment. I do disagree with feeding kids in school and providing all books, uniforms etc though- I think that would be going overboard. If a central purchasing scheme was open to everyone- it would be fair enough- however not on a subsidised basis.

We wanted to have kids- and we are paying for childcare- because we made that decision. My wife is not in a position (on health grounds) to stay at home and mind the kids- and similarly I'm not in a position to give up work- as I'd be in breach of our mortgage covenants.

Regarding moving to a country where one income is enough to support our family- why can't that country be Ireland- I'm Irish, and despite the way our politicians have managed to bollox up the finances of the country- I do actually love my country and have no affinity with anywhere else. What you're suggesting is simply- we export people to whittle down our country. The fact of the matter is- my wife and I are paying almost 58% of our gross income in various taxes, charges and levies- ontop of our extortionate childcare costs. If you suggest other people like us feck off to Canada (or where-ever) you are going to dig an even bigger hole in the tax take- and mess up the national finances even more.

tenchi-fan wrote: »

Tax would be lower because you're not taxed to the hilt to prop up the welfare system and public sector wage bill. You wouldn't be competing with councils so house prices and rent prices would stabilise.

If we elect to abondon ship and feck off to elsewhere....... So the inverse of this is if we elect to stay in Ireland, as Irish people- we have to accept that we are going to get crucified several times over?

tenchi-fan wrote: »

I don't understand how one person's earnings from spending Monday-Friday, 8am-6pm (including travel) .. the majority of a day and the majority of a week... isn't enough to run a one-person household, and two people's income isn't enough to support a family.

It depends on people's circumstances. Some people will have familial support to assist with childcare- some won't. Some people are lucky enough to have good health- others aren't. The way the system works at the moment- unless you are able to tap familial support towards childcare (be it financial or actual physical help)- for someone on the average industrial wage- two kids will consume their net wage at the moment, and three simply wouldn't work financially.

Aside from childcare costs- the big cost for a family who are genuinely trying to support themselves- tends to be mortgage costs. We can go down the road of debating Rental Allowance, Rental Support and RAS- however then you're moving back into the realm of state support for people to have kids again. We have a very modest little house- which is simply too small for a family- however we own it, and are paying the mortgage on it- along with all our other bills, including childcare- and because of this- we need two incomes. The end.

Short of waving a magic wand on the entire populace- forgiving all mortgage and other debt, and providing assistance (be it childcare or otherwise) to those who need it- you are not going to have a situation where its financially viable for a small family to support themselves on a single income (unless its a rather large income!!!) I'm paying just shy of 60% of my gross income in taxes, levies and charges- and have to somehow balance the books from the remaining 42% that the government elect to hand back to me. Meanwhile- my neighbours who are unemployed- have 4 kids, a state provided house, smoke drink and socialise regularly, multiple holidays a year- and can actually afford to buy their kids things when they need them- something is seriously screwy somewhere........

We have created a system which persecutes those lucky enough to have jobs who would like to have kids- while simultaneously incentives those who don't have jobs- to have as many kids as possible. To my mind there is something perverse at play here......

Suggesting to people that if they want a better life- they should emigrate elsewhere- is no answer- we can't afford the current system- our country is bankrupt, whether the populace accept it or not- and putting perversions into the way we support our citizens certainly isn't going to resolve any of the deeprooted problems we have. Fecking off to Canada- does suit some people- I used to envy them, now I'm simply sad that it does seem to have become policy somehow- if even informal. Should you have to abandon your native country, just to live?

Tora Bora

We all know the pub trade is in crisis.
Child benefit should be paid in the form of beer vouchers, redeemable at a pub near you.
Big slice of the cost of provision will immediately flow back to the exchequer.
Highly efficient way of reducing the net cost of child benefit.:cool:

bamboozle

child care should be means tested or alternatively cost of childcare should be capped at say €500 per month per child for the parent with the state paying the balance.

Edward Carson

tenchi-fan wrote: »

Child benefit should be abolished and social welfare dramatically slashed.

In fact, social welfare should be capped at €80 and no additional housing supplement. Any other requirements can be given by way of direct provision.. packets of seeds for growing vegetables, subsidised chickens so people can have eggs for breakfast, 10kg bags of rice once a month.

Smccarrick, so you want €17,736 so both you and your wife can work? Would it not be better to live in a country where one income is enough to run a household and your wife can stay at home and mind the kids?
Tax would be lower because you're not taxed to the hilt to prop up the welfare system and public sector wage bill. You wouldn't be competing with councils so house prices and rent prices would stabilise.

I don't understand how one person's earnings from spending Monday-Friday, 8am-6pm (including travel) .. the majority of a day and the majority of a week... isn't enough to run a one-person household, and two people's income isn't enough to support a family.

Firstly, excellent post OP. I totally agree with your suggestion.

Tenchi-fan - why did you specify a desirability for his wife to stay at home? As a father myself, I am determined to play an active role in the upbringing of my children, as are many other fathers in relation to their children. I don't think it is at all helpful to the cause of men's rights to simply assume it should be the woman who should stay at home. Actually, the sexist connotations in your statement could be seen as equally damaging to women. If we are to establish a utopia of breeders and breadwinners, perhaps we should be a little more sensitive to the choices of both men and women when discussing respective roles?

smelltheglove

I completely agree child benefit should be means tested. How many parents put their child benefit into a savings account straight away, never touching it, keeping it for the big 18th or 21st gift? School uniforms / books / childcare, yes it may work for some but not for all. In all honesty our child benefit usually goes towards our rent payment, as I cannot wait until the benefit comes in if my kids need food or shoes, I buy them when they need it as often as they need them and use the money for the roof over their heads.

As for social welfare claimants etc etc once upon a time I would have sat there and said exactly the same, cut it, too much for free etc etc etc but having experienced it (my husband was made redundant and recently went back to work) it is not a nice experience, the system is flawed all over the place and needs a revamp. There are certain allowances you can only claim after a certain amount of time claiming, say heating allowance iirc and every allowance is seperate i.e. jsa, clothing, back to school, rent, medical card. We should not be looking at just the child benefit, we should be looking at everything, a major restructure of the system to make it work for those who need it but still keep it at a level where you would be better off working. Packets of seeds and chickens will never work though Techni.

conorhal

Papa Smut wrote: »

Eh.. as a kid, I remember buying my dad smokes from butter vouchers. A stamp system won't stop people using them for drink/cigs

Well, butter is a commodity and it's sold in the same places that you can buy cigs and alcohol, I'd imagine however that a jaundiced eye would be cast over any corner shop submitting a voucher for payment for school books or a crèche place that they have allegedly supplied.

I was thinking centralized procurement would be a good idea to cut the cost of supplying books, stationary and uniforms, but as another poster pointed out, whenever the state seems to get involved in supplying any service it inevitably ends up costing twice the price and enriching some crony. I think that allowing private sector suppliers compete for the business is a better option and the very specific nature of the vouchers would cut down on systemic abuse.

smccarrick wrote:

Giving all kids in school a meal along with their books- is overkill, but would be nice- the big issue is the extortionate cost of childcare for those of us lucky enough to actually have work........

Well the big issue for you is childcare costs, personally I think child benefit’s focus needs to be on ensuring that vulnerable children's needs are met and their quality of life and opportunities are enhanced.
For the most vulnerable children, such provisions as clothing that does not set them apart from other children in their classroom, a nutritious breakfast and a hot meal that allows them to concentrate in class and reassure them that at least they well be fed that day are really important.

It’s the children are sent to school hungry and shabby with no books because their parents are alcoholics or incapable that are most in need the kind of direct provision intervention that I'm talking about. With these extra provisions they are provided inclusion, structure and care that enhances the school experience for them and perhaps encourages them to stay on there.

kippy

tenchi-fan wrote: »

Child benefit should be abolished and social welfare dramatically slashed.

In fact, social welfare should be capped at €80 and no additional housing supplement. Any other requirements can be given by way of direct provision.. packets of seeds for growing vegetables, subsidised chickens so people can have eggs for breakfast, 10kg bags of rice once a month.

Smccarrick, so you want €17,736 so both you and your wife can work? Would it not be better to live in a country where one income is enough to run a household and your wife can stay at home and mind the kids?
Tax would be lower because you're not taxed to the hilt to prop up the welfare system and public sector wage bill. You wouldn't be competing with councils so house prices and rent prices would stabilise.

I don't understand how one person's earnings from spending Monday-Friday, 8am-6pm (including travel) .. the majority of a day and the majority of a week... isn't enough to run a one-person household, and two people's income isn't enough to support a family.

Excellent topic - we are expecting our first in July so this kinda thing is gonna be more and more relevant. Thankfully we are both working but we dont have convenient access to family for some childcare. However if there comes a point for me where I see it is more cost effective for one of us to stay at home (that is unlikely by the way) then I have no problem being that person via a career break or some other type of scheme, however that option is not available to everyone.

Onto your post tenchi-fan.
Where do I start.
You've obviously no idea of how the vast majority of this country has lived for the past 20 or so years and have no idea of what the general idea has been with planning in this country either. For the past decade of more the emphasis has been on getting people living closer together, in built up areas with less land. Growing your own food - and especially keeping your own animals is NOT an option for a large portion of the population.
You dont understand how one persons earnings arent enough to run a household? You show very little appreciation for the varying:
1. Incomes that one person can have.
2. Outgoings that family has.

Nowadays - car costs (and if you expect to grow food/keep animals, you'll need a car or some transport to get), Insurance costs for almost anything, car, house, life, health etc as well as the costs of bringing up a child, never mind rent/mortgage etc are a lot for a low paid one worker family to pay.

Yep, these costs should be reduced but to be brutally honest, I dont see where they are getting reduced - I have a lot of sympathy for the HONEST person on the dole, who doesnt get much else and cannot get a job, who may have all the costs I mentioned above. I feel equally sorry for the low paid worker - they also have the same level of costs.


Anyway, back on topic - the steps outlined in the first post are something I would like to see happen. Childcare costs in parts of this country are a major issue.

3DataModem

Why pay someone else to look after your kids? There should be better tax breaks for single-income two parent families so that one of them can stay at home with the children.

Balmed Out

what i cant understand is the more kids the more allowance per child. It makes sense for twins etc but otherwise surely you have more hand me downs etc?

invinciblePRSTV

conorhal wrote: »

We spend 2.5 billion euro per year on child benefit. There is talk of course about means testing benefits, the implementation of which would in all likelihood be as costly as any saving that might be achieved, so is it time for a radical rethink?

This is an assertion made without any actual evidence and is made, i suspect, because the uproar from axing universal CB benefits would outrage that most self centred and greedy of entities - middle Ireland.

Let's be realistic here, with a little co-ordination between departments it should be quite straightforward to determine parents incomes and apply a standard cut off point for access to CB but, as mentioned and as exemplified in the UK when the Tories eliminated universal CB entitlements there, the uproar would be enormous.

conorhal wrote: »

I reckon that you could axe child benefit all together and still, for 1.5 billion euro provide every child in school with a uniform, all their school books and materials for the year and a hot meal once a day and still have change left over to build state run crèches for the under 4’s.

I think we should stop handing out cash and start handing out vouchers for schoolbooks, school lunches and crèche places thus directly targeting the money towards the things it's actually supposed to be spent on.
This would also ensure that children from an underprivileged background are guaranteed to be clothed and fed (and thus incentivized to attend school).

We had such a system, the book loan scheme which was very successful, however in their wisdom the government decided to axe it as part of the fiscal retrenchment of the past few years, but kept the subsidies to private schools.

Equally there have been Oireachtas reports on childcare costs but guess what? the centre right's representatives - in the form of FF and FG - made sure that instead of a logical idea like establishing a national, subsidised creche system, that they instead harked back to their simplistic Catholic ethos and made arguments like others on this thread have that the mothers place should be in the home and that there should be tax credits to that effect, oh, and offer a cheque for every newborn in the years 07/08/09 to help with childcare costs (and open a nice little market for "entrepreneurs" to cash in on).

So in short, we've got a lot of useless non-effective measures, but it went down well with the public (free money has a habit of doing that) and chimed in with the dominant ideology of traditional family values. What a squalid little banana republic we live in.

Idbatterim

should children allowance only be paid for 2 kids? after that you are on you own, if you replying on E140 per month of whatever it is, should you really be having a kid? although I know some nearly view them as disposable as a mere pet! The cost of child care here was a big issue for a while, have prices dropped or why do you not hear about it as much? I have read all posts, and the system is so screwed up, so depraved, its actually perverse! If you have kids, unless you have a damn good paying job, or both parents are working you are not going to be left with much / anything at end of month . I really think the welfare system here has gone to far, the biggest victims and silent majority here are middle Ireland. I mean you have a couple with kids, with a several hundred k mortgage, working there asses off to pay for it, along with childcare, all child related expenses, then car, utilities etc etc etc, living beside wasters who are probably no worse off than the couple killing themselves, who also dont happen to have a several hundred thousand liability literally over their heads! if you think about it, I would say lower classes, who have most kids, over the course of their lifetime would be a net drain on the state... why not give tax relief if you have kids? Also this rubbish about means testing child benefit, so again you are going to screw those actually paying into the system?

i71jskz5xu42pb

conorhal wrote: »

state run crèches for the under 4’s.

State funded crèches please, the state has a good record of doing one thing well: collecting and spending taxes. Everything else they run (e.g. health, education) turns to shít.

Papa Smut wrote: »

Eh.. as a kid, I remember buying my dad smokes from butter vouchers. A stamp system won't stop people using them for drink/cigs

Was this during The Emergency?

macannrb

kippy wrote: »

Where do I start.
You've obviously no idea of how the vast majority of this country has lived for the past 20 or so years and have no idea of what the general idea has been with planning in this country either.

Where do I start? maybe with the government deficit which is set to remain the same. We need to slash everything. No time to be delicate about it

kippy

macannrb wrote: »

Where do I start? maybe with the government deficit which is set to remain the same. We need to slash everything. No time to be delicate about it

No way - the country is broke and we need to slash everything?? I've been in an ivory tower for the past 3 years and didnt realise that. Thanks for the clarification......

Re read my post - take it in context. I wasnt arguing against cuts in child benefit. I was making the point that the poster advised that people should be given seeds to grow food and animals to assist them provide for themselves. I made the point that planning in this country has been geared towards centralized buildings - towns and cities - try grow enough food to support yourself in an apartment or small house - never mid rearing animals.
Lets be realistic here.

invinciblePRSTV

Idbatterim wrote: »

why not give tax relief if you have kids?

Tax reliefs for lifestyle choices? nah.

Idbatterim wrote: »

Also this rubbish about means testing child benefit, so again you are going to screw those actually paying into the system?

Why is it rubbish? some people need CB more then others. Why public subsidies are given to those who least need them is what's rubbish here.

Oh_Noes

hinault wrote: »

Cash can be spent on anything (alcohol, smokes) instead of stuff for the children.

It can also be spent buying the stamps you're suggesting from another person for a reduced price, then spent by the seller on drink and cigarettes.

The solution is reforming the public services to fit our society/economy more efficiently. People can't be controlled as easily as introducing a token system.

jim69

pay them for the first kid,nothing after that,they make a career out of making money from having kids,free house,medical card,they never work or marry.their kids follow the same cycle so on and on.they give zero to society.many places in dublin are entire estates with this set up.costing billions.cant afford it any more.

thebman

Just pay welfare using a credit card system which can only be used to purchase pre-approved items which fit the purpose of the welfare.

Or let them buy what they want and have revenue analyse the statistics after a year to find out what people are buying with their welfare.

We are paying for it so we should be entitled to know what it is being spent on to ensure it is going toward essential purchases and not booze.

Idbatterim

Why is it rubbish? some people need CB more then others. Why public subsidies are given to those who least need them is what's rubbish here.

right, i want to know why, those that pay the most into the system get by far the least out if it and those that do nothing get by far the most out of it?

bmarley

Very good topic. The welfare system in this country is a farce and is open to so much abuse. Could never get my head around the concept that 140 euro is paid for 1st and 2nd child with an additional amount being paid for subsequent children - surely this amount should be reduced because the older children should have clothes etc to hand down. No wonder people choose to have 7+ children when the state provides this sort of finance for their upkeep. There are many cases where this money is not spent on the children as it was intended. I too think vouchers for food, clothes, books etc would be money better spent and should only be made available to those most in need. There are a lot of clever people who play all our generous systems - why should the government continue spending huge amounts to irresponsible persons who do not want to provide for their children. All new work placement programmes needs to target those people that have been abusing our system for many years by claiming all the benefits instead of looking for work/training. Let's start with those who have been unemployed for more than 5 years. The new category of "most in need" are those who have always tried to participate in the economy but now find themselves unable to due to employment etc. The government need to help them with mortgage payments but refuse to be of any help whilst paying huge rents for big families who have never lifted a finger towards participating in our society. Again the governments initiatives in child care provision simply have not and are still not working. It is the same group of people who are entitled to everything. Disgraceful!

mari2222

The schools should operate a lending scheme for books and there might be actual savings for the state after a few years

invinciblePRSTV

Idbatterim wrote: »

right, i want to know why, those that pay the most into the system get by far the least out if it and those that do nothing get by far the most out of it?

Because Child Benefit, nor any other welfare entitlements for that matter, aren't paid on a basis of what you pay in general taxation you then receive back in public subsidies. It should be offered on the basis of the parent's income, or lack of it.

thebman wrote: »

Just pay welfare using a credit card system which can only be used to purchase pre-approved items which fit the purpose of the welfare.

People talk about mindless, nonsense bureaucratic measures and then you suggest this? It's none of your business what people spend their welfare entitlements on.

thebman wrote: »

Or let them buy what they want and have revenue analyse the statistics after a year to find out what people are buying with their welfare.

A nonsense Orwellian proposal.

thebman wrote: »

We are paying for it so we should be entitled to know what it is being spent on to ensure it is going toward essential purchases and not booze.

Your moralising suggestions belong more in Hicksville, Red State USA then in Ireland.

Gumbo

mari2222 wrote: »

The schools should operate a lending scheme for books and there might be actual savings for the state after a few years

me and my brothers went through the whole of Secondary school with only having to buy a handful of books.

the school operated a rental scheme for books, every student opted for it, dont think you could actually opt out and it was circa 50 pounds for the year.

i spent years listenenind to my mates and how much their books were costing etc, i thought the scheme was brilliant and couldnt believe how luck i/my parents were that this scheme operated.

it was a CDVEC school in Finglas btw.

Wheelie King

I will always remember sitting on the nitelink years ago (2005-2006) and a few girls behind me where yapping away after a good night out. They kept going on about how one of the women had 4 kids all with different men and how she was such a slapper. She went on to discuss how she had it better than any "working woman" out there. 80-100 euro a week for each of her kids from the daddy and get this a whopping 650 euro a week between rent allowance and welfare. Do the math folks that is in and around 1000 euro a week tax free for doing feck all except raising her kids.

Now i know it's a horrible position to be in with the kids having no dads in their lives (well at least not living under the same roof) but jesus christ my partner and myself don't earn that now and we both work full time jobs. Something is very very wrong with this country when you hear this kind of carry on.

smelltheglove

jim69 wrote: »

pay them for the first kid,nothing after that,they make a career out of making money from having kids,free house,medical card,they never work or marry.their kids follow the same cycle so on and on.they give zero to society.many places in dublin are entire estates with this set up.costing billions.cant afford it any more.

Who is THEY?

thebman

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

People talk about mindless, nonsense bureaucratic measures and then you suggest this? It's none of your business what people spend their welfare entitlements on.

Never said it was my business. Your taking it very personally TBH.

If the state is giving such subsidies, it has the right to know if they are being spent appropriately and to analyse to see if the amounts are appropriate.

It could also be used to analyse if more is required in different areas depending on the cost of living around the country.

Not surprisingly, some are against such a measure as it would stop the gravy train of child benefit for those who do not need it.

A nonsense Orwellian proposal.

It isn't Orwellian for the state to know what the people who claim they need state benefits to survive are spending their money on.

Don't like it, stop claiming it and find an alternative source of funding.

tenchi-fan

smccarrick wrote: »

Regarding moving to a country where one income is enough to support our family- why can't that country be Ireland-

Actually, I wasn't suggesting you emigrate. I was suggesting that the country *should* be Ireland.

I wrote: Would it not be better to live in a country where one income is enough to run a household (i.e. instead of hiking welfare, then hiking income supplements, then introducing "free" childcare that would just cause tax to creep even higher)

I think Ireland is a disgrace at the moment. And I have, at least temporarily, emigrated. I'm just trying to save some money to do some repair work on my house when I arrive home, but tax hikes and mortgage interest hikes made it impossible to save back home.

tenchi-fan

Edward Carson wrote: »

Tenchi-fan - why did you specify a desirability for his wife to stay at home?

It was an example.

Edward Carson wrote: »

perhaps we should be a little more sensitive to the choices of both men and women when discussing respective roles?

I'm easy. Discussion of gender roles is off-topic

jim69

they are people who have numerous kids by numerous fathers and seem to think the taxpayer will fund them.ones a mistake 6 or 7s taking the piss.why would they worry,they will just light another john player blue

conorhal

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

This is an assertion made without any actual evidence and is made, i suspect, because the uproar from axing universal CB benefits would outrage that most self centred and greedy of entities - middle Ireland.

To be honest I believe in universal benefits, and I think that we should be investing in ALL children equally because we all have an equal investment in the next generation on which we will depend, my question is how best can we support this upcoming generation.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

We had such a system, the book loan scheme which was very successful, however in their wisdom the government decided to axe it as part of the fiscal retrenchment of the past few years, but kept the subsidies to private schools.

Another poster mentioned this scheme and indeed it sounds like a very good idea. My point however was that instead of axing such schemes we need to expand them, not as 'extra benefits' like the back to school allowance etc but as a replacement for child benefit, I think in this difficult economy we could save money and at the same time enhance the opportunities on offer to children.
How much would it cost to put this years school books (and materials) on every desk in a classroom waiting for each pupil in september? I don't know but I can't imagine it would cost more then 20 or 30 million euro.
When you consider the costs of directly providing real 'benefits' for a child like a uniform, a meal etc against the enormous cost of child benefit with it's rather defuse and unquantifiable 'benefit' to that child, I'd rather know the money was being spent with a defined, direct provision.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Equally there have been Oireachtas reports on childcare costs but guess what? the centre right's representatives - in the form of FF and FG - made sure that instead of a logical idea like establishing a national, subsidised creche system, that they instead harked back to their simplistic Catholic ethos and made arguments like others on this thread have that the mothers place should be in the home and that there should be tax credits to that effect, oh, and offer a cheque for every newborn in the years 07/08/09 to help with childcare costs (and open a nice little market for "entrepreneurs" to cash in on).

So in short, we've got a lot of useless non-effective measures, but it went down well with the public (free money has a habit of doing that) and chimed in with the dominant ideology of traditional family values. What a squalid little banana republic we live in.

Frankly, if the government has any intrest in traditional family values, it would not have gone down the route of tax individualization that actually limited the option for women that might want to stay at home and raise their children.

macannrb

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

People talk about mindless, nonsense bureaucratic measures and then you suggest this? It's none of your business what people spend their welfare entitlements on.

When welfare is costing 2/3rd of our taxation revenue, and we are losing the same amount in each year in public deficit, then the suggestion cutting it entirely should be on the table. Unless we know for a fact its being spent wisely. Given the size of the bill, its very much our business what it is spent on

Welease

thebman wrote: »

Not surprisingly, some are against such a measure as it would stop the gravy train of child benefit for those who do not need it.

In fairness those who don't need it, are those who are most likely funding it from their taxes.. So it's hardly a gravy train..

The gravy train would be those who contribute little or nothing to the system.

thebman

Welease wrote: »

In fairness those who don't need it, are those who are most likely funding it from their taxes.. So it's hardly a gravy train..

The gravy train would be those who contribute little or nothing to the system.

One could just as easily argue that it is those without kids paying the child benefit of those with kids and jobs and it is indeed a gravy train for all involved.

Individual taxes don't pay for everything they use/get from the state or we wouldn't have a 20 billion deficit.

astrofool

tenchi-fan wrote: »

Actually, I wasn't suggesting you emigrate. I was suggesting that the country *should* be Ireland.

I wrote: Would it not be better to live in a country where one income is enough to run a household (i.e. instead of hiking welfare, then hiking income supplements, then introducing "free" childcare that would just cause tax to creep even higher)

I think Ireland is a disgrace at the moment. And I have, at least temporarily, emigrated. I'm just trying to save some money to do some repair work on my house when I arrive home, but tax hikes and mortgage interest hikes made it impossible to save back home.

Women are getting higher exam results in school, and are making up a higher proportion of high point courses than men.

To go back to one income families would require that men be the ones who stay at home, to prevent a devastating brain drain on the system (we've spent thousands educating these people all the way through third level).

To suggest we go back to some 60's utopia of men working and women breeding, is ridiculous.

tenchi-fan

astrofool wrote: »

Women are getting higher exam results in school, and are making up a higher proportion of high point courses than men.

So what if women score higher than men in exams. There are plenty of high-scoring women in the unemployed line, or in the final months of pregnancy and incapable of working.

Exams are purely academic. How many times were you sitting in front of a highly qualified academic or lecturers and thinking, I'd like to see you last one day in the real world, buddy!

astrofool wrote: »

To go back to one income families would require that men be the ones who stay at home, to prevent a devastating brain drain on the system (we've spent thousands educating these people all the way through third level).

Flawed logic, see my previous point. Besides, men can stay at home. Simply eliminate the tax incentives introduced to encourage both parents to work.

astrofool wrote: »

To suggest we go back to some 60's utopia of men working and women breeding, is ridiculous.

Yes, it's much better to have men and women dropping their kids in a creche at 8 and picking them up at 6 in the evening. Ever heard of family values? Work-life balance? These values are disappearing under the government.

astrofool

tenchi-fan wrote: »

So what if women score higher than men in exams. There are plenty of high-scoring women in the unemployed line, or in the final months of pregnancy and incapable of working.

Proportionately less women have lost their jobs than men.

Second part is simple sexism.

tenchi-fan wrote: »

Exams are purely academic. How many times were you sitting in front of a highly qualified academic or lecturers and thinking, I'd like to see you last one day in the real world, buddy!

You do know that virtually every doctor, solicitor or engineer has been through third level education? Most of which, these days, are women. Lecturers, by their job title, are of course in courses teaching, most doctors, solicitors and engineers, do indeed work in the "real world".

tenchi-fan wrote: »

Flawed logic, see my previous point. Besides, men can stay at home. Simply eliminate the tax incentives introduced to encourage both parents to work.

By taking away the availability for childcare, the net effect is less women working, the only way around that is further inducements (grants, benefits etc.) only to men who stay at home, which isn't likely to happen (they make up a ridiculously small percentage of stay at home partners in the "real world").

tenchi-fan wrote: »

Yes, it's much better to have men and women dropping their kids in a creche at 8 and picking them up at 6 in the evening. Ever heard of family values? Work-life balance? These values are disappearing under the government.

The first is a throwback to the idealised american 60's, and not relevant today.

Work-life balance does not equal one person working and the other not, it's about any single individual balancing their work life with their home life, child care is an integral part of this.

RichardAnd

astrofool wrote: »

Women are getting higher exam results in school, and are making up a higher proportion of high point courses than men.

Are you implying that women are somehow better than men simply because they score higher in the leaving cert? Gender bias comparisons based on the results of a dreadfully flawed and bastardised education system really do irk me.

astrofool

RichardAnd wrote: »

Are you implying that women are somehow better than men simply because they score higher in the leaving cert? Gender bias comparisons based on the results of a dreadfully flawed and bastardised education system really do irk me.

That's really a different debate.

Bear in mind, however, that this "dreadfully flawed and bastardised education system" was put in place by men, and is, generally, run by men.

The facts are that, today, more women than men are achieving higher results at both leaving and third level education, to force them back to a one income society where they breed babies, is going to cause a huge brain drain on the economy, just at the moment when we need highly educated people.

tenchi-fan

RichardAnd wrote: »

Are you implying that women are somehow better than men simply because they score higher in the leaving cert? Gender bias comparisons based on the results of a dreadfully flawed and bastardised education system really do irk me.

The leaving cert is a fair exam in some ways. It doesn't leave college admission procedures at the whim of colleges and universities to cherry-pick students with wealthy parents.

However, women test better.

My twin sister beat me by 65 points. She became a teacher, but if I applied for teaching I would not have got enough points.

I went on to do further education in accounting and I'm sure she would have struggled with it. I think my IQ is a few points higher than hers, too. It doesn't make one of us more intelligent than the other. It just proves what nonsense all this talk about sexual equality really is.

So is is sexist to say men and women have different talents and it can't just be measured by academic exams?


I'm 29 and I work with a 29 year old woman who is married.
She was promoted internally to a very small team which lost 6 years of experience when a woman went on maternity leave (it worked out well for me, I got a 13 month contract).
The manager asked my colleague at the interview was she planning on having a baby. She told me she said "no", but "my husband just started a job in HR and his pay isn't very good. I'm planning on working here for a year then having a baby and going on maternity leave"

And regarding "the final months of pregnancy and incapable of working" that you said was sexist... the woman who was meant to be training me before she went on Maternity leave was being such a bitch to me I told my manager I could not work with her. My manager said, "oh don't worry, she's just hormonal!" Because she was so far gone she worked from home a lot which really didn't help with my training either.

The_Conductor

astrofool wrote: »

That's really a different debate.

Bear in mind, however, that this "dreadfully flawed and bastardised education system" was put in place by men, and is, generally, run by men.

The facts are that, today, more women than men are achieving higher results at both leaving and third level education, to force them back to a one income society where they breed babies, is going to cause a huge brain drain on the economy, just at the moment when we need highly educated people.

While I agree with the gist of what you're saying- just have to point out that over 90% of teachers are female- and in the Department of Education- just under 70% of the staff are female- so its not actually accurate to suggest that the educational system is generally run by men.......

On a different note- while women may achieve a far higher proportion of the top marks at leaving cert- and consequently enter professions such as veterinary science, medicine (and over the past decade- increasingly once male bastions such as architecture and even civil engineering- if you follow up on people still employed in the profession to which they qualified 10 years down the road- women are more than 6 times more likely to leave a profession such as medicine- than men are. This is being held up by the IMC as the reason for the crisis in Ireland- where GPs are vanishing off the register in startling numbers........ Women may put in the hours in their teens and 20s- but if they don't get that magic consultants post- thats it, they're out the door....... Can't say I blame them- 120 hours straight on-call, is a recipe for disaster.......

Back to replacing cash benefits with direct provision - why does this have to have any bearing on universality? Provision of state run creches (given the red tape at present- we're only one step away from this anyway), central purchasing of clothing, provision of nutritious healthy food, book rental schemes etc- and do away with the EUR140 a month? I'd be only too happy to accept services such as these........

astrofool

smccarrick wrote: »

While I agree with the gist of what you're saying- just have to point out that over 90% of teachers are female- and in the Department of Education- just under 70% of the staff are female- so its not actually accurate to suggest that the educational system is generally run by men.......

Look at the gender bias in the role of principals and the managers in the department itself, women have greater numbers at the bottom rung.