Child benifit for those on over €100,000 may be taxed?

lightspeed · 23-07-2012 05:03PM #1

I read on the RTE news app that theyare considering taxing the child benefit for those earning over€100,000. Good God, why do we even have to dancearound the idea?
Why cant we abolish It 100% for those on that kind of money? The country is still spending more thanwe take and our welfare system is still based on artificially createdrates from borrowed money that never should have been borrowed to begin with.

Its a god damn disgrace that childbenefit exists for such wealthy people who dont need it.
I hate every bit of the corruption,excuses and hypocrisy of this country. Some say we need to tax the rich and others say we need to cut welfare.
What happens when those on welfare are the rich?
Then your In Ireland so bend over.

chin_grin · 23-07-2012 05:04PM

Space bar on your phone fecked?

CodyJarrett · 23-07-2012 05:08PM

In before the accusations of safety pin vandalism on condoms.

buck65 · 23-07-2012 05:16PM

Think of the children Joe.

Tombi! · 23-07-2012 05:17PM

Just calm down, it's a "may be taxed". There's still a good chance it won't be.

juan.kerr · 23-07-2012 05:19PM

I'd abolish it completely if we plan to make savings. 100k combined income makes you rich? That's a laugh.

jam_mac_jam · 23-07-2012 05:21PM

Should be much lower than 100k should people on 50k be getting it? I don't think so

AckwelFoley · 23-07-2012 05:25PM

The other side of the debate is, as taxpayers are they not entitled to it considering it's they who contribute most?

lightspeed · 23-07-2012 05:28PM

AckwelFoley wrote: »

The other side of the debate is, as taxpayers are they not entitled to it considering it's they who contribute most?

What other side of the debate, they earn more so they pay more. It not hard to understand but such corrupt charitable donation is hard to understand

juan.kerr · 23-07-2012 05:30PM

AckwelFoley wrote: »

The other side of the debate is, as taxpayers are they not entitled to it considering it's they who contribute most?

Lets tax it and include ALL social welfare entitlements as taxable income including rent allowance and medical cards.

FGR · 23-07-2012 05:34PM

If anything there should be a ceiling on welfare in general meaning that when all benefits are totted up you shouldn't be on more than minimum wage.

As for those who are working - include it as taxable income.

jam_mac_jam · 23-07-2012 05:38PM

AckwelFoley wrote: »

The other side of the debate is, as taxpayers are they not entitled to it considering it's they who contribute most?

Do they? I doubt the majority of people on over 100k are paye workers.So I doubt they are contributing their share.

EchoO · 23-07-2012 05:42PM

Did they say how much this is expected to save? Doesn't sound like it would be that much.

AckwelFoley · 23-07-2012 05:45PM

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

AckwelFoley wrote: »

The other side of the debate is, as taxpayers are they not entitled to it considering it's they who contribute most?

Do they? I doubt the majority of people on over 100k are paye workers.So I doubt they are contributing their share.

So people earning 100k pay less taxes than a paye employee on 20k per year?.

Interesting.

Horse**** but interesting none the less

Ireland's blind hate for successful people remains strong.

juan.kerr · 23-07-2012 05:47PM

EchoO wrote: »

Did they say how much this is expected to save? Doesn't sound like it would be that much.

I thought I read somewhere that the administration overhead would negate any cost savings. This applied for means testing and making taxable I think.

However having said that I don't really see how it is true for making it taxable.

jam_mac_jam · 23-07-2012 05:50PM

AckwelFoley wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

AckwelFoley wrote: »

The other side of the debate is, as taxpayers are they not entitled to it considering it's they who contribute most?

Do they? I doubt the majority of people on over 100k are paye workers.So I doubt they are contributing their share.

So people earning 100k pay less taxes than a paye employee on 20k per year?.

Interesting.

Horse**** but interesting none the less

Ireland's blind hate for successful people remains strong.

did i say that?

AckwelFoley · 23-07-2012 05:56PM

[/Quote]did i say that?[/Quote]

Well by contributing I assume we are talking about tax, which is essentially funding the government coffers

On a site note..those that can least afford to have children tend statistically to be the the ones that have the most.

But sure..let the wealthy work and pay for others to have lItters of children they cant afford.

juan.kerr · 23-07-2012 05:58PM

We should be taxing people for having children they can't afford. Might help solve some of the countries social problems.

lightspeed · 23-07-2012 05:58PM

AckwelFoley wrote: »

So people earning 100k pay less taxes than a paye employee on 20k per year?.

Interesting.

Horse**** but interesting none the less

Ireland's blind hate for successful people remains strong.

No they pay more because they earn more. After paying taxes on 100k they still have a lot of disposable income. So much that they can afford to feed and clothe their children and thats exactly what should happen because the country can afford to finance their children. WE ARE SPENDING MORE THAN WE TAKE IN. Cant you get that, just get it.

dvpower · 23-07-2012 06:00PM

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

did i say that?

Why do you doubt that people on >100k are paying their fair share?

A teacher married to a nurse, both half way up their payscale would be hitting 100k

jam_mac_jam · 23-07-2012 06:03PM

dvpower wrote: »

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

did i say that?

Why do you doubt that people on >100k are paying their fair share?

A teacher married to a nurse, both half way up their payscale would be hitting 100k

I thought it was 100 each

juan.kerr · 23-07-2012 06:06PM

lightspeed wrote: »

Cant you get that, just get it.

Strange how you have seem to have accepted the political reality but only as it applies to the 'well off'.

jam_mac_jam · 23-07-2012 06:06PM

[Quote/]

Well by contributing I assume we are talking about tax, which is essentially funding the government coffers

On a site note..those that can least afford to have children tend statistically to be the the ones that have the most.

But sure..let the wealthy work and pay for others to have lItters of children they cant afford.[/QUOTE]

Well, its not just the wealthy though is it, its all of us. Including people on very low wages.

I don't think its fair that somebody on 20k who doesnt have kids is paying for somebody on 100k who does.

dvpower · 23-07-2012 06:06PM

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I thought it was 100 each

Combined I thought. Individualisation wouldn't make sense for this.

average_runner · 23-07-2012 06:07PM

lightspeed wrote: »

AckwelFoley wrote: »

So people earning 100k pay less taxes than a paye employee on 20k per year?.

Interesting.

Horse**** but interesting none the less

Ireland's blind hate for successful people remains strong.

No they pay more because they earn more. After paying taxes on 100k they still have a lot of disposable income. So much that they can afford to feed and clothe their children and thats exactly what should happen because the country can afford to finance their children. WE ARE SPENDING MORE THAN WE TAKE IN. Cant you get that, just get it.

Better of reducing dole payments and that would save more.

AckwelFoley · 23-07-2012 06:09PM

.[/QUOTE]

No they pay more because they earn more. After paying taxes on 100k they still have a lot of disposable income. So much that they can afford to feed and clothe their children and thats exactly what should happen because the country can afford to finance their children. WE ARE SPENDING MORE THAN WE TAKE IN. Cant you get that, just get it.[/Quote]

I'm quite aware of the concept. But you fail to understand my point. It's once again the net contributor to the governments coffers that is getting asked to foot the bill.

The have never worked will never work brigade with 10 children doesn't worry because his money will be in the post office.

Yet if I earned 100k and worked hard to earn it including all tow sacrifices to get there..I wouldn't be entitled to child benefit.

My argument is merely devils advocate.

jam_mac_jam · 23-07-2012 06:10PM

dvpower wrote: »

Combined I thought. Individualisation wouldn't make sense for this.

Oh, I thought it was each. In that case my point is arse as most on 50K would pay similar percentage tax or higher to those on much lower wages.

average_runner · 23-07-2012 06:12PM

lightspeed wrote: »

AckwelFoley wrote: »

So people earning 100k pay less taxes than a paye employee on 20k per year?.

Interesting.

Horse**** but interesting none the less

Ireland's blind hate for successful people remains strong.

No they pay more because they earn more. After paying taxes on 100k they still have a lot of disposable income. So much that they can afford to feed and clothe their children and thats exactly what should happen because the country can afford to finance their children. WE ARE SPENDING MORE THAN WE TAKE IN. Cant you get that, just get it.

If u keep taxing the successful people more it will become a place where there is no reward for working hard. Easier for sucessful person to walkout on the country and leave it in bigger mess. Solve the area where we spend most and thats the dole

jam_mac_jam · 23-07-2012 06:17PM

average_runner wrote: »

If u keep taxing the successful people more it will become a place where there is no reward for working hard. Easier for sucessful person to walkout on the country and leave it in bigger mess. Solve the area where we spend most and thats the dole

Why not do both? I dont think many people will be too worried about 100 quid a month. So although I agree you shouldnt tax people too high in this case I dont think it will have much of an effect.

AckwelFoley · 23-07-2012 06:23PM

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

average_runner wrote: »

If u keep taxing the successful people more it will become a place where there is no reward for working hard. Easier for sucessful person to walkout on the country and leave it in bigger mess. Solve the area where we spend most and thats the dole

Why not do both? I dont think many people will be too worried about 100 quid a month. So although I agree you shouldnt tax people too high in this case I dont think it will have much of an effect.

True..but neither will the higher property taxes they will pay or the higher increased income tax rate that WILL be brought in.

See the thing is..there's not too many earning 100k. But when they then reduce if to say 80 or 60 more will be affected to increase revenue and then there comes a point people just say **** it.. why bother.

Welease · 23-07-2012 06:24PM

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

[
Well, its not just the wealthy though is it, its all of us. Including people on very low wages.

I don't think its fair that somebody on 20k who doesnt have kids is paying for somebody on 100k who does.

That really is stretching the arguement a bit far

According to taxcalc.ie

A married person on €100K with 1 child will take home €63,483 (36,517 tax)
A married person on €20K with 0 children will take home €18,745 (1255 tax)

Person A (100K) earns 5 times what Person B (20K) earns, but pays 29.1 times the amount of tax...

For the OP, one of the reasons it hasnt been done is that the Revenue and Social Welfare systems are not linked, so SW can't means test based on what people earn at present.

Child benifit for those on over €100,000 may be taxed?

Comments