Issue of child benefit

7sr2z3fely84g5

This has come up few times in the unpopular opinions thread,the methods of accessing child benefit,lets look at the ways to claim-

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/child_benefit.html

You need to apply for Child Benefit within 12 months of:

• The birth of your baby or
• The month the child became a member of your family or
• The month the family came to live in Ireland.

i don't know why but you can claim until your child is 17

Full-time education (aged 16 and 17)

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.
If you don't get a form in the post from the Child Benefit section, fill in form CB2 in September - see 'How to apply' below.

Looking at the rates,they increase-

Child Benefit monthly rate in 2011:
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

The payment is universal,meaning anyone can claim it,the previous governments where often urged to introduce an means test or apply an income threshold limit,but this was never introduced,i know the well off in society pay into the system,but i think the system is open for abuse in rich or poor circumstances,i think if there was an threshold or means test it might weed out some fraudulent claims or reduce payments.

Each person has responsibility in creating life,our laws are too lax on letting the state picking up for those who wont support their children.

mikemac

Means testing isn't the simple solution, it involves getting more staff in to administer it and there are already huge backlogs in the Department of Social Protection and while they may be transfers there is also a recruitment freeze

Easy to call for means testing but they may be a better way of doing it.
I don't know exactly the best way though

7sr2z3fely84g5

i don't believe in that official rubbish,they can move fairly quick to close tax loopholes/introduce levy's etc,uk system did an income threshold,of course in this country the more you donate to your local political party it gets push aside :rolleyes:

uk method-

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1705548/How-will-child-benefit-cuts-hit-you.html

From 2013 child benefit will no longer be universal. Only basic rate taxpayers will be entitled to it and any family with one partner or more paying higher rate tax will not be entitled to child benefit.
If a higher rate taxpayer family does claim child benefit it will be taken back through the tax system, either via their tax return or by their employer in Pay As You Earn tax
Chancellor George Osborne said: 'I hope higher rate taxpayers do the sensible thing, which is to stop claiming child benefit, so we don't have to take it back through the tax system.'
Who will this hit hardest?
This brutally simple method of stopping child benefit will mean that families with an annual income of nearly £88,000 could still claim child benefit, if neither income exceeds £44,000, but a family with one earner on £45,000 will have it removed.
It will disproportionately hit higher rate taxpayer single parent families and families and those with say a father on £44,000 to £60,000, with a mum working part-time, or not working, to look after children.

Chuck Stone

Deeming it taxable income would recoup a lot of it would it?

January

Means testing it would mean the people who need it most (those who are working, but just on the breadline) would have it taken away from them.

January

Means testing it would mean the people who need it most (those who are working, but just on the breadline) would have it taken away from them.

Richard Hillman

Means testing it would be a start but doing away with it completely would be a more satisfactory answer to the problem. The state shouldnt have to fund peoples lifestyle choices.

RedXIV

Best to have it as a tax credit instead no?

joes girls

I think things would be better if people looked after what is in their own back pocket, never mind what others have and where they get it from.
I also think we pay enough taxes in Ireland, and suggesting we pay more is madness.

southsiderosie

I don't think there should be child benefit at all. The day to day expenses of raising children should not be the responsibility of the government. In the case of a single parent, the non-custodial parent should pay child support.

This money would be better spent on improving the country's educational infrastructure, expanding child care options for working families, and making early childhood ed more readily available, especially in poorer areas.

January

southsiderosie wrote: »

I don't think there should be child benefit at all. The day to day expenses of raising children should not be the responsibility of the government. In the case of a single parent, the non-custodial parent should pay child support.

This money would be better spent on improving the country's educational infrastructure, expanding child care options for working families, and making early childhood ed more readily available, especially in poorer areas.

I would love if they took away child benefit and instead provided free (proper free!) health care and child care for children instead. But, I doubt that would ever happen... and if it does, I'll eat my hat.

Lord TSC

I think there should be child support but it should only support; it shouldn't be enough to raise the kid. If parents cannot afford to have kids, they shouldn't be rewarded for having kids. Furthermore, support should only be offered for one or two kids; people who have 5 kids just to get extended benefits should again not be rewarded...

Forest Master

We get child benefit each month & don't even need it. We just blow it each month. Sometimes I buy power-tools in B&Q that I don't need, or just gets the cars valeted.

Up de Barrs

Last week the government announced that the pupil teacher ratio was being increased to save €75m. It would be far better for the long term well being of the country to reduce child benefit by €5 a month (saving the equivalent amount) and maintaining the current pupil teacher ratio.

fedor.2.

Forest Master wrote: »

We get child benefit each month & don't even need it. We just blow it each month. Sometimes I buy power-tools in B&Q that I don't need, or just gets the cars valeted.

This post says all i need to know about you. Why dont you take the lead so and tell the state that you dont need the money

antodeco

€140 per month is actually only just support. Its not a fill time payment. Its roughly €35 a week. Baby food and nappies would only just be covered in that payment.

Mr Bloat

Forest Master wrote: »

We get child benefit each month & don't even need it. We just blow it each month. Sometimes I buy power-tools in B&Q that I don't need, or just gets the cars valeted.

This post makes me sad for humanity. Why don't you donate the money to charity instead of buying crap you don't need? At least put the money to good use instead of into the tills of B&Q.

Forest Master

fedor.2. wrote: »

This post says all i need to know about you. Why dont you take the lead so and tell the state that you dont need the money

I sent them an e-mail and they never replied.

gcgirl

I know a lot of people who depend on that payment, by the time the mortgage is paid they have no money for anything else so its a life saver for those in need, means testing is the way ahead anybody earning over 100,000 per yr should not be getting it.

dvpower

January wrote: »

Means testing it would mean the people who need it most (those who are working, but just on the breadline) would have it taken away from them.

How so?
Means testing would surely favour people who are 'just on the breadline'.

phil1nj

Mr Bloat wrote: »

This post makes me sad for humanity. Why don't you donate the money to charity instead of buying crap you don't need? At least put the money to good use instead of into the tills of B&Q.

The entire system needs to be overhauled seeing as in Ireland a millionaire is entitled to the same monthly payments as someone on social welfare. If child benefit is going to be a universal payment i.e. no means testing then it should be as follows: A payment for the first child, an equal payment for the second child, a substantially lower payment for the third child and then nothing for each subsequent child after that. If people want to have massive broods of kids, then go for it but you'll get no support from the state after the 3rd child. This might make people think about the costs involved in having kids.

Either that or classify child benefit as income and tax it. This is a ridiculous proposal though as it involves taxing people so that a benefit can be paid to them which in turn can be taxed and so on and so forth.

So people will disagree with the above as the benefit is suppossed to be for the child. Fair enough, then work on a system that actually involves some sort of direct payment to the child (voucher system for clothes/shoes/education costs etc) but the universal payment system is seriously flawed and doesn't always benefit the child as we've seen from some of the previous posts.

dvpower

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

I think there should be child support but it should only support; it shouldn't be enough to raise the kid. If parents cannot afford to have kids, they shouldn't be rewarded for having kids.

That's exactly what it does - provides some support. It goes nowhere near the real cost of raising a child (and rightly so).

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Furthermore, support should only be offered for one or two kids

Why only one or two?

Pherekydes

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The state shouldnt have to fund peoples lifestyle choices.

Having children is not a lifestyle choice; it is a biological urge; it is our Raison d'être.

southsiderosie wrote: »

In the case of a single parent, the non-custodial parent should pay child support.

I was a single parent at one stage. My wife left the jurisdiction. Not only that, but she took the Child benefit book and was cashing the checks abroad.

One size solutions never fit all.

January

dvpower wrote: »

How so?
Means testing would surely favour people who are 'just on the breadline'.

Look at the Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance, the people who need it most are the people earning just over the threshold allowed to claim for it, which means these people struggle more to pay their bills etc. There should be some sort of case by case basis that even if over by a few euro a month you could still claim it by providing evidence of your outgoings per month as well as your incomings, but there's not.

Mickeroo

fedor.2. wrote: »

This post says all i need to know about you. Why dont you take the lead so and tell the state that you dont need the money

It might be lousy that they get free money they don't need from the state but they'd have to be pretty dumb to not accept it too. It's not their fault it's the state's.

dvpower

January wrote: »

Look at the Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance, the people who need it most are the people earning just over the threshold allowed to claim for it, which means these people struggle more to pay their bills etc. There should be some sort of case by case basis that even if over by a few euro a month you could still claim it by providing evidence of your outgoings per month as well as your incomings, but there's not.

That's a problem with the either the means test and/or with the eligibility rules. Its probably true that, if we were to introduce means testing at all, some people are going to get caught in the gap - this is a good arguement for maintaining it as a universal payment.

In the UK they are establishing a means testing agency. This would be a single agency responsible for doing means tests. All other government services that pay out on means tested entitlement programs would get information from that agency. This should allow them to have much more detailed and accurate means tests, so there should be much less scope for people who need benefits failing a simple means test, much better targetted benefits and less fraud.

stovelid

January wrote: »

Means testing it would mean the people who need it most (those who are working, but just on the breadline) would have it taken away from them.

That's all well and good but we don't really this kind of rational post in a splenetic witch-hunt thread?

wild_cat

Being the social climber that I am... Hanging around with a few rich kids... (pre boom)

Anyways.... Two of my friends parents used to lodge it into a bank account for their child who then got the whole thing as a lump sum when they turned 18.

That's surely not right. If some people are using it to keep them off the bread line etc. and others are doing this with the money.

If they bring in means testing it will cost more to implement than it will actually save from the reports I've heard.

I do think there should be a cut off point though like first two children only and those with 8 kids unable to support them is quite frankly taking the piss. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I'm well aware that the worst kind of poverty is child poverty, I'm not very inclined towards children but I don't want to see them starve or half clothed.

Two child limit on the payment anyways.

dvpower

wild_cat wrote: »

Two child limit on the payment anyways.

Why does two appear to be the magic number? Is there some research that point to four as the optimum family size?

Two isn't even a replacement rate.

wild_cat

Pherekydes wrote: »

Having children is not a lifestyle choice; it is a biological urge; it is our Raison d'être.

I seem to have the ability to control mine though. Where's my self control payment?

Absurdum

wild_cat wrote: »

Anyways.... Two of my friends parents used to lodge it into a bank account for their child who then got the whole thing as a lump sum when they turned 18.

That's surely not right.

it's better than going out on the piss like a lot of "parents" do

Lord TSC

dvpower wrote: »

That's exactly what it does - provides some support. It goes nowhere near the real cost of raising a child (and rightly so).


Why only one or two?

I guess its a arbitary number. My real problem comes from the fact there seems to people people who try and have three kids by 20 and more after in order to get as much social welfare payments as possible.

Someone posted figures in another topic which showed that the more kids you have, the more money you get per kid. That's not right. It breeds a culture where people have loads of kids not because they want them but because they want the money. Furthermore, I dont believe these huge amounts of money being given out for 4-5 kids and more is going towards the kids wellbeing. If at that stage some forms of vouchers were brought in, fine, but it strikes me that some people have kids just for the benefits.

I say one or two cause that gives people A chance to make a mistake and even a second. If you have a third kid when you cannot afford it, it should not be the state's responsibility to pay for that kid. You should not have kids if you're not in a situation where you can sensibly determine if your finances can afford another one.

dvpower

wild_cat wrote: »

I seem to have the ability to control mine though. Where's my self control payment?

It will come when you retire - the children being raised now by all of the parents in the state, with some contribution by you, will pay your pension and your health care costs.

wild_cat

dvpower wrote: »

Why does two appear to be the magic number? Is there some research that point to four as the optimum family size?

Two isn't even a replacement rate.

I watch a lot of documentaries about population. Mainly in relation to the environment.

This one is probably the best. http://phill.co/interesting/how-many-people-can-live-on-planet-earth-one-of-david-attenboroughs-best

It's an Attenburough doc so its fierce credible to. That blog has it broken down into 6 parts from you tube as well. The whole doc that is.

wild_cat

dvpower wrote: »

It will come when you retire - the children being raised now by all of the parents in the state, with some contribution by you, will pay your pension and your health care costs.

Not all of us rely completely on the state for our futures. Private health care and investments. I'm going to be left a good few assets to.

dvpower

wild_cat wrote: »

I watch a lot of documentaries about population. Mainly in relation to the environment.

This one is probably the best. http://phill.co/interesting/how-many-people-can-live-on-planet-earth-one-of-david-attenboroughs-best

It's an Attenburough doc so its fierce credible to. That blog has it broken down into 6 parts from you tube as well. The whole doc that is.

Can you give us a tl;dr on that?

wild_cat

Absurdum wrote: »

it's better than going out on the piss like a lot of "parents" do

That's quite true. It ended up being spent on being out on the piss and clothes from top shop in the end though. Boosting consumer figures though so I suppose that's alright.

wild_cat

dvpower wrote: »

Can you give us a tl;dr on that?

No. Why should I? It's not exactly an essay.

dvpower

wild_cat wrote: »

Not all of us rely completely on the state for our futures. Private health care and investments. I'm going to be left a good few assets to.

Sure. Nor do you fully fund the raising of children now.
You pay a little now, you'll get a little later.

Not to forget the fact that if you grew up in Ireland, you have already benefited from CHB

dvpower

wild_cat wrote: »

No. Why should I? It's not exactly an essay.

Bit tetchy today?

wild_cat

dvpower wrote: »

Sure. Nor do you fully fund the raising of children now.
You pay a little now, you'll get a little later.

Not to forget the fact that if you grew up in Ireland, you have already benefited from CHB

Yeah. I'm not going for a complete ban here. Just payment for two children. You shouldn't have any more if you can't afford them. If you can by all means go ahead. But if you can't don't whinge.

Mickeroo

dvpower wrote: »

Can you give us a tl;dr on that?

It just says we'll reach our max global population(15.1 billion) in the latter half of this century. Then there's a documentary to watch.

dvpower

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Someone posted figures in another topic which showed that the more kids you have, the more money you get per kid. That's not right. It breeds a culture where people have loads of kids not because they want them but because they want the money.

It goes up marginally after the second kid - I can't see the sense in this myself.

But its not nearly enough to bring up kids, so I can't see it as being a strong incentive.

Citizens info wrote:

The rate for the 1st and 2nd child is €140.00 per month, €167.00 for the 3rd child and €177.00 for the 4th and subsequent children.

Mickeroo

wild_cat wrote: »

Yeah. I'm not going for a complete ban here. Just payment for two children. You shouldn't have any more if you can't afford them. If you can by all means go ahead. But if you can't don't whinge.

I think that's fair enough. If the pregnancy is planned then it's pretty irresponsible to have children at all if you can't afford to raise them yourself imo.

dvpower

Mickeroo wrote: »

It just says we'll reach our max global population(15.1 billion) in the latter half of this century. Then there's a documentary to watch.

Ah right. What we need so is to get some of the young people from the high population growth areas to come and live here.

Incentivise people to have kids or more immigration. That looks like the menu. Tough choice for some of the AH regulars.

thebigbiffo

My wife and I both work and earn good salaries. However - because of the government backed development policy (our large mortgage), our own naive decisions and the banks' willingness to throw money at us, our reduction in take home pay due to cuts to bonuses and the like, the increase in the cost of essential services, the outrageous cost of childcare and the governments seeming unwillingness to address that problem and the general high cost of living in this country the childrens allowance is an essential part of our monthly budget.

If we were means tested or it was taken away at the higher tax band - as per the UK - although none of us would starve, it would mean a very large impact on our lifestyle.

I am very protective of child benefit because the way I see it it's the ONLY concession I get from the Gov. My wife and I have never drawn the dole or taken any other form of benefit from the governent and have paid tax constantly for over 13 years now - giving me back a little to ensure as good standard of living as possible for our children is hardly the worst of the country's money worries.

Amirani

thebigbiffo wrote: »

I am very protective of child benefit because the way I see it it's the ONLY concession I get from the Gov. My wife and I have never drawn the dole or taken any other form of benefit from the governent and have paid tax constantly for over 13 years now - giving me back a little to ensure as good standard of living as possible for our children is hardly the worst of the country's money worries.

Never use hospitals, schools or call the police no?

thebigbiffo

niallsparky wrote: »

Never use hospitals, schools or call the police no?

eh...i pay my taxes for the use of those services (unlike a very large section of society too may I add - at both end of the rich/poor divide).

what I'm talking about here is actual monetary help.

3DataModem

Twins get 3 payments, triplets get 6 payments.

Awesome, eh?

dvpower

3DataModem wrote: »

Twins get 3 payments, triplets get 6 payments.

Awesome, eh?

Source?

Citizens Info wrote:

Multiple births
The rate of child benefit paid for twins will be 1.5 times the appropriate monthly rate for each child.
The rate for the 1st and 2nd child is €140.00 per month, €167.00 for the 3rd child and €177.00 for the 4th and subsequent children.

Pherekydes

dvpower wrote: »

Source?

Child Benefit is paid at one and a half times the appropriate monthly rate for twins, and at double the appropriate monthly rate for triplets and other multiple births.

So twins: two times one and a half equals three.

Triplets: three times two equals six.

:pac: