Child Benefit - Cuts Being Proposed

JustinDee

Simon Coveney is a brave individual indeed for suggesting that Child Benefit requires a look with regards to cost to economy and how it is distributed.

I personally believe it should be means tested and paid according to household income.
It is being pontificated by the likes of Shane Ross TD, for example, that "Child benefit not just some middle class perk. Many targeted for property tax, in negative equity,trapped in middle Ireland need it to live".
This is the TD stating that a social welfare payment aimed at children's welfare should be used as a mortgage or finance subsidy. In other words, a pacification handout just for having children by in his own words, people who have hit trouble financially.

Why should a family with two middle earners and two children receive the same as a single parent or single income family with two children? A double-earning family should not expect free money simply for the fact that they have children, in my opinion. People who can afford to send kids to good schools, pay a house cleaner or keep a second car or even property are in receipt of free money just because they've kids.

In my view, it is both incredible and embarrassing that this country does not means test such a benefit payment. No moral relativism please. This isn't about the banking system, bloated public service or any other matter. I'm curious as to how someone can attempt to justify social welfare payment when already in receipt of healthy income. I believe the above quote from Ross to be absolute emotional blackmail and wholly irrelevant too, in that this class of people the populism is aimed at (myself included) were never forced to borrow 100% or over 30 years or well beyond their means.

Only arguments I've seen to counter any means-testing are deflections about the banks, politicians etc etc. Still haven't seen a credible argument for child benefit to adequately earning households.

crusher000

Problem with means testing is the cost of savings by reducing the payment and finding out the genuine people will be less than it is to pay the good folk in the public service to do the work.

JustinDee

crusher000 wrote: »

Problem with means testing is the cost of savings by reducing the payment and finding out the genuine people will be less than it is to pay the good folk in the public service to do the work.

In the medium to long run, I think it is a necessary measure to make. Simply cutting the benefit amount across the board will impact unfairly on those who actually qualify for it.

I think its about time that medium to long-term planning was undertaken. The problem through many strands of the Irish infrastructure and economy is that there is very little provision for the long run taken into consideration.

crusher000

I agree the rich families shouldn't get it as they don't depend on it. And I may be picking specifics but both my wife and I are working and not high earners and could lose child benefit if demed to be earning above the threshold. Take somenone then that is a single mother but living with her partner on the quite, both getting social welfare and he's doing a few cash in hand jobs. They are probably better of than me financily but through means testing I may lose the payemnts and they keep theirs.

JustinDee

Problem with comparisons like this is that the State isn't responsible for keeping someone receiving honestly on a par with someone else who is cheating the system.
This certainly, in my view anyway, doesn't justify blanket payments en bloc to any family with a child or children.
If you both earn within the 41% tax bracket, for example, why qualify for child benefit as that of a lower bracket's benefit?

crusher000

Take everyone of it so. Grand job next issue please.;)

creedp

JustinDee wrote: »

Problem with comparisons like this is that the State isn't responsible for keeping someone receiving honestly on a par with someone else who is cheating the system.
This certainly, in my view anyway, doesn't justify blanket payments en bloc to any family with a child or children.
If you both earn within the 41% tax bracket, for example, why qualify for child benefit as that of a lower bracket's benefit?

Why qualify for personal allowance, PAYE allowance, mortgage allowance, pension contribution tax credits, all other allowances which are designed to minimise the amount of tax paid? Why should wealthy people benefit from these allowances/credits when they obviously dont need them? The problems is for the really well off, child benefit is just pocket money and there are many other tax allowances/credits much more valuable to them. But we don't hear any debate over these. People simply have a serious problem that parents may be receiving some State support for their children. Why not go the full hog and campaign for the end of free education for the 'well off'. Sure I mean it they can afford to have them then they can afford to educate them!

The whole argument that the less well off depend more on child benefit is only the case if social welfare benefits/FIS and other State supports are not adjusted to take account of family size, i.e. the larger the family the higher the allowance .. so as suggested earlier get rid of child benefit for everyone as the less well off are already compensated for having families!!

JustinDee

Again, the term "rich" is highly subjective. It is also relative however, as in who considers who to be "rich".
You brought it up yourself when asking why allocate benefits in the first place. The benefits you list are distributed in according to income levels.
The point of the child benefit system is for the support of children. Not indirectly to support bank loans, pay household staff, load a second holiday or supplement household projects.
Scrapping it deprives those who genuinely need it.

Just my view, but still to be convinced otherwise . . .

Farmer Pudsey

In most other countries there is a proper support in place for working couples especially when childern are young. There are creshe and preschool setup that allow parents to work and it to cost them very little. This is not the case in Ireland it costs a couple about 10k/year to go to work and have even one child minded.

This is another sop to political correctness. At what stage should income be means tested at and what will be allowed against means. Will self employed be able to manulipate there income like for college grants. Will the same means test levels be set as for college grants. Will large mortgages be offset.

At present PAYE families have to fund all there childern's education after an income of about 55K. These are the taxpayers that are constantly targated by these means tests so it it just another tax on low middle income workers.

Lets just tax and means test them more and give it to those poor unemployed families let us continue the situtation where we will encourage more and more people to leave the workforce and join the everlasting party.

minotour

JustinDee wrote: »

Simon Coveney is a brave individual indeed for suggesting that Child Benefit requires a look with regards to cost to economy and how it is distributed.

I personally believe it should be means tested and paid according to household income.
It is being pontificated by the likes of Shane Ross TD, for example, that "Child benefit not just some middle class perk. Many targeted for property tax, in negative equity,trapped in middle Ireland need it to live".
This is the TD stating that a social welfare payment aimed at children's welfare should be used as a mortgage or finance subsidy. In other words, a pacification handout just for having children by in his own words, people who have hit trouble financially.

Why should a family with two middle earners and two children receive the same as a single parent or single income family with two children? A double-earning family should not expect free money simply for the fact that they have children, in my opinion. People who can afford to send kids to good schools, pay a house cleaner or keep a second car or even property are in receipt of free money just because they've kids.

In my view, it is both incredible and embarrassing that this country does not means test such a benefit payment. No moral relativism please. This isn't about the banking system, bloated public service or any other matter. I'm curious as to how someone can attempt to justify social welfare payment when already in receipt of healthy income. I believe the above quote from Ross to be absolute emotional blackmail and wholly irrelevant too, in that this class of people the populism is aimed at (myself included) were never forced to borrow 100% or over 30 years or well beyond their means.

Only arguments I've seen to counter any means-testing are deflections about the banks, politicians etc etc. Still haven't seen a credible argument for child benefit to adequately earning households.

we're forced to pay for it though.

Sleepy

Speaking as a father of two who currently relies on the CA to balance our household budget: Scrap it entirely and divert 80% of the funds into providing free school books, uniforms, increased capitation grants and banning "voluntary" contributions.

Funnel the money into the most important investment possible in a child's life. Since parents currently pay for all of the above anyway, it shouldn't leave us that much worse off (might actually leave some better off) and the economies of scale possible were the Dept. of Education to be buying the textbooks (and re-using them for a number of years).

Parents aren't ruined by not getting CA.
Education gets a funding boost.
DOH/Welfare Staff can be diverted to tackling backlogs elsewhere in the system as CA no longer needs to be administered.
Efficiency gains lead to better bang for buck on state expenditure.


I'm sure the proposal needs some finessing e.g. allowing for children under school-going age via childcare allowances / tax credits / welcome packs as distributed in some nordic countries etc. but those are the lines I'd be thinking along. Unfortunately I can never see a government going for it: far too practical and efficient to ever be implemented.

everdead.ie

I think the main issue for me (As someone not receiving child Benefit) is that a two income household actually get it on par with a one income household, but a two income household especially for young children would be paying through the nose for childcare unless they happen to have a grand parent able to babysit the child. That amount is significantly more a month then what the government gives them out probably in the region of 7 times more?

A single income household on the other hand actually gets this money but don't have these costs associated.

touts

They are trotting out the example of Michael O'Leary but the reality is if they took the allowance from all the "rich" in Michael O'Leary's category the savings wouldn't even cover the administration costs. There are too few of them and those that are millionaires tend to be older and have no children young enough to qualify.

Instead this is just another assault on the middle classes. The unfortunates who are unlucky enough to still have a job in this country and are made feel guilty about it every day. They are the only eegits putting their hands into their pockets for €60 to bring their deathly ill child to see a GP in a crowded waiting room packed of medical card holders looking for Anti-biotics because they sneezed last night. If they have to go to hospital they are disdainfully told they are not contributing enough to the cost of a public bed and they must pay more in health insurance. Of course the fact that their tax bought the bed and all the equipment and staff running around it is missed. They bought and paid for the bed now are being told to **** off and pay again. They are told that of course their property, septic tank and water charges will be higher because they have to pick up the tab for their poor unemployed neighbour who can’t afford to pay for these services yet somehow found the money for a bouncy castle and 10 slabs of beer for their childs communion. They are told that times are tough and they must pay a higher “voluntary” contribution to the running of their child’s school because the department of education had to divert the money into an army of new accountants to tell them how to save money. Meanwhile their sons learning support hours have been cut so they have to spend hours each night teaching them to read and write because apparently schools don't do that anymore. They are told that their Gas and Electricity prices must go up to ensure competition. But the only real competition is between state owned companies who pay staff 100K a year to sit in empty power stations playing cards. They are told that their pension fund must be raided for the national good by a gob****e pothole filler who stumbled into a ministerial merc because he was on the right side of a party coup 18 months before the jobs were being handed out and now has a pension of 100K+ a year for life from 50. They are told they must pump billions into bailing out the gambling losses of German and French speculators who poured money into the private company Anglo Irish Bank but when it comes to a little relief on their negative equity mortgage they are told that those are private debts and the state can’t get involved.

And now as the latest insult we are told we are not worthy of child benefit and should give it up as our little contribution to the national recovery.

FCUK off! You have bled us dry.

granturismo

crusher000 wrote: »

Problem with means testing is the cost of savings by reducing the payment and finding out the genuine people will be less than it is to pay the good folk in the public service to do the work.

Linking means test for all services and taxes to a PPS number would solve such issues with water rates, household charges, free travel, child benefit, medical cards etc.

I cant see why a common data base cant be set up that can be linked to relevant government depts that issue charges or payments that are linked to means testing or that should be linked to a means test.

creedp

touts wrote: »

They are trotting out the example of Michael O'Leary but the reality is if they took the allowance from all the "rich" in Michael O'Leary's category the savings wouldn't even cover the administration costs. There are too few of them and those that are millionaires tend to be older and have no children young enough to qualify.

Instead this is just another assault on the middle classes. The unfortunates who are unlucky enough to still have a job in this country and are made feel guilty about it every day. They are the only eegits putting their hands into their pockets for €60 to bring their deathly ill child to see a GP in a crowded waiting room packed of medical card holders looking for Anti-biotics because they sneezed last night. If they have to go to hospital they are disdainfully told they are not contributing enough to the cost of a public bed and they must pay more in health insurance. Of course the fact that their tax bought the bed and all the equipment and staff running around it is missed. They bought and paid for the bed now are being told to **** off and pay again. They are told that of course their property, septic tank and water charges will be higher because they have to pick up the tab for their poor unemployed neighbour who can’t afford to pay for these services yet somehow found the money for a bouncy castle and 10 slabs of beer for their childs communion. They are told that times are tough and they must pay a higher “voluntary” contribution to the running of their child’s school because the department of education had to divert the money into an army of new accountants to tell them how to save money. Meanwhile their sons learning support hours have been cut so they have to spend hours each night teaching them to read and write because apparently schools don't do that anymore. They are told that their Gas and Electricity prices must go up to ensure competition. But the only real competition is between state owned companies who pay staff 100K a year to sit in empty power stations playing cards. They are told that their pension fund must be raided for the national good by a gob****e pothole filler who stumbled into a ministerial merc because he was on the right side of a party coup 18 months before the jobs were being handed out and now has a pension of 100K+ a year for life from 50. They are told they must pump billions into bailing out the gambling losses of German and French speculators who poured money into the private company Anglo Irish Bank but when it comes to a little relief on their negative equity mortgage they are told that those are private debts and the state can’t get involved.

And now as the latest insult we are told we are not worthy of child benefit and should give it up as our little contribution to the national recovery.

FCUK off! You have bled us dry.

Hear , Hear!

crusher000

granturismo wrote: »

Linking means test for all services and taxes to a PPS number would solve such issues with water rates, household charges, free travel, child benefit, medical cards etc.

I cant see why a common data base cant be set up that can be linked to relevant government depts that issue charges or payments that are linked to means testing or that should be linked to a means test.

Too true , so if it's that simple how come governments over the last 30 years can't implement it ?. Answer civil servants would lose their jobs. lightbulb moment for me.

Sleepy

everdead.ie wrote: »

I think the main issue for me (As someone not receiving child Benefit) is that a two income household actually get it on par with a one income household, but a two income household especially for young children would be paying through the nose for childcare unless they happen to have a grand parent able to babysit the child. That amount is significantly more a month then what the government gives them out probably in the region of 7 times more?

A single income household on the other hand actually gets this money but don't have these costs associated.

A single income household wouldn't have the income of a two-income household either... though that could be handled by the tax bands for married couples, co-habiting couples not being allowed to be jointly assessed would leave them even worse screwed than under the current system.

kippy

Can someone please define "rich" in terms of this thread please?
What is a "rich" or "well off" family?

Sleepy

I'd personally regard any family with an after-tax income of 60k per annum as being comfortable, 80k after tax as reasonably well off and 100k after tax as doing well. Rich would be a term I'd save for those with a net wealth of seven-figures or more as it's a term describing wealth rather than income.

Welease

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd personally regard any family with an after-tax income of 60k per annum as being comfortable, 80k after tax as reasonably well off and 100k after tax as doing well. Rich would be a term I'd save for those with a net wealth of seven-figures or more as it's a term describing wealth rather than income.

<gets popcorn>

Sleepy

Do I need to highlight the second word? That's my personal definition, I'm sure yours and others would be different.

You might also notice that what I'd propose (further up the thread) wouldn't have anything to do with income or wealth: I'd scrap the payment entirely and use it to fund genuinely free education.

Farmer Pudsey

kippy wrote: »

Can someone please define "rich" in terms of this thread please?
What is a "rich" or "well off" family?

It is becoming obivious that this is any person that get up in the morning (evening or night) and goes and trys to earn a living by working.

Welease

Sleepy wrote: »

Do I need to highlight the second word? That's my personal definition, I'm sure yours and others would be different.

You might also notice that what I'd propose (further up the thread) wouldn't have anything to do with income or wealth: I'd scrap the payment entirely and use it to fund genuinely free education.

I tend to be in somewhat agreement with you... but we both know that attempting to answer the question as you did will lead to a million different and dissenting opinions (hence the /popcorn.. youve given this thread 1000 more posts minimum)

(I do personally think only considering people only being comfortable on 60K after tax is somewhat excessive though)

JustinDee

Unfortunately desperate times require desperate measures. With the future economy of the country in mind, one such measure is stopping the bleed of public purse into handouts to households already earning enough to be taxed 41%.
Got kids? Great. Have some money to assist with their well-being . . . BUT only if you fulfill certain criteria. Falsify situation in order to claim, then pay the price legally in court.

Play the victim and bang on about the banks etc by all means. Its a seperate issue. Tugging at the public purse's strings by is a massive problem in Ireland, Anglo or no Anglo as is the never-ending playing of the victim.
Economic participation is two-way and adjustments must happen at the doorstep as well as at civic office level.

ardmacha

Child benefit should be taxed, end of. Then you get a differentiation between those who receive all of it, 80% of it or 60% of it. If persons circumstances change then no additional bureaucracy is needed.

There is a lot of waffle about this being too difficult. Require the PRSI numbers of both parents and deduct tax when in doubt, allowing people with "special" cases claim it back.

kippy

Welease wrote: »

I tend to be in somewhat agreement with you... but we both know that attempting to answer the question as you did will lead to a million different and dissenting opinions (hence the /popcorn.. youve given this thread 1000 more posts minimum)

(I do personally think only considering people only being comfortable on 60K after tax is somewhat excessive though)

So what would your definition of "rich" or "well off" be?

Sleepy

Welease wrote: »

I tend to be in somewhat agreement with you... but we both know that attempting to answer the question as you did will lead to a million different and dissenting opinions (hence the /popcorn.. youve given this thread 1000 more posts minimum)

(I do personally think only considering people only being comfortable on 60K after tax is somewhat excessive though)

I'd agree it'd be excessive for a person, hence why I said family

For one earner bringing home that after tax or two bringing it in combined, it'd leave you about 4,000 a month (after a reasonable 1k mortgage) to cover Food, Clothing, Utility Bills, Transport Costs, Health / Life / Home Insurance, a foreign holiday once a year etc: effectively all the trappings of a normal middle-class lifestyle.

A single person would be doing very well for themselves at that level though.

Trampas

I don't agree with giving cash for child benefit as nobody knows where the cash is going.

Free school books, uniforms, copies etc instead of cash is much better in my opinion.

Gumbo

Trampas wrote: »

Free school books, uniforms, copies etc instead of cash is much better in my opinion.

What about the pre-school years?

Welease

kippy wrote: »

So what would your definition of "rich" or "well off" be?

I think it's impossible to determine in isolation (and for clarity.. I was not attempting to undermine or belittle Sleepy's post.. twas just in jest)..

A lot of these posts (again not Sleepy's) attempt to determine the financial resources of a person (or family) based purely on income.. If it were that easy or true, then everyone around/above average income level (€35k) could or should be defined as comfortable, but we know thats not the case.. As many below that level of somewhat are comfortably based on their needs, and many with considerably higher incomes with large debts are under considerable issues.

"Rich" / "Well Being" etc. are a matter of income/outgoing/expectations etc.

Dannyboy83

I would say means testing would be the best idea - except that there are people with large incomes and even larger financial commitments such as medical bills or mortgages.
And there are hundreds of thousands of them.

In this case, means testing solves nothing.

Sleepy had the best idea.

Scrap it entirely and divert 80% of the funds into providing free school books, uniforms, increased capitation grants and banning "voluntary" contributions.

This seems like a very good idea, with very few drawbacks.

Dannyboy83

kceire wrote: »

What about the pre-school years?

Apparently Sweden has a very good state-funded childcare system.

I wonder if this money could be used to reform the childcare crisis in Ireland?

steelboots

From a legal perspective, if you means test child benfit, its the children that are means tested and therefore will be paid to 99.99% of children.

I'm sick and tired of this constant hit the rich attitude. Don't forget its the high earners that are paying huge amounts of tax that pay for Edcuation, Health, Social Welfare............

I'm married with 4 kids, with mywife and I working. Approx costs of having kids:

1) Crech: €14,500
2) School Books: €600
3) School Uniform: €600
4) "Voluntary" School Donation €360
5) Health Insurance for kids: €1200
6) Various extra corricular activities: €300

---

Total Approx €17,500
Child Benfit Received € 6,900

---

My wife and I pay approx €50k in PAYE/PRSI etc... every year not to mention Car Tax, Duties on fuel, Property Tax etc....

I make no appologies for getting childrens allowance and given I pay €17,500 in crech fees I'm probably paying the salary of a worker in the crech thereby keeping one person off the dole.

If my wife and I gave up working we would probably be entitled to €50k in dole + allowances.......

JustinDee

The household income is what determines the mean testing. The children are not the legal contingent. By your logic, its the children who can be liable to be taxed or should sit in a case officer's meeting representing themselves!
What are you going to do once these children finish this "create" age? Send back some of the allowance? Or choose to send to fee paying primary and secondary schools?
You appear to think that you deserve the equivalent you pay the state back to your purse. That's not how the system works.
Others are quoting Sweden and next probably Norway as examples of standard setting systems. They omit however the levels of taxation an earner pays and that all welfare assistance is means tested.

Godge

Sleepy wrote: »

Speaking as a father of two who currently relies on the CA to balance our household budget: Scrap it entirely and divert 80% of the funds into providing free school books, uniforms, increased capitation grants and banning "voluntary" contributions.

Funnel the money into the most important investment possible in a child's life. Since parents currently pay for all of the above anyway, it shouldn't leave us that much worse off (might actually leave some better off) and the economies of scale possible were the Dept. of Education to be buying the textbooks (and re-using them for a number of years).

Parents aren't ruined by not getting CA.
Education gets a funding boost.
DOH/Welfare Staff can be diverted to tackling backlogs elsewhere in the system as CA no longer needs to be administered.
Efficiency gains lead to better bang for buck on state expenditure.


I'm sure the proposal needs some finessing e.g. allowing for children under school-going age via childcare allowances / tax credits / welcome packs as distributed in some nordic countries etc. but those are the lines I'd be thinking along. Unfortunately I can never see a government going for it: far too practical and efficient to ever be implemented.

A great idea which I have supported in the past on these threads.

For the pre-schoolers, you could have a small payment per month for the first year to cover cost of diapers etc. For two-to-four year-olds you could subsidise childcare costs where both parents are working. For school-going children, Sleepy's proposal kicks in. I would amend it slightly, no funding of this kind to private schools.

The children would be the ones to benefit. The parents that save CB for their skiing holiday would lose out, as would those who move out of Ireland, or those who drink or smoke it. The money would be going directly into the economy here giving a direct stimulus to the economy instead of a portion of it being saved or sent or spent abroad. In fact even implementing all of the above would probably allow the government to increase the amount spent directly in the economy but also save money on the cost to the government.

tails_naf

granturismo wrote: »

Linking means test for all services and taxes to a PPS number would solve such issues with water rates, household charges, free travel, child benefit, medical cards etc.

I cant see why a common data base cant be set up that can be linked to relevant government depts that issue charges or payments that are linked to means testing or that should be linked to a means test.

I know, it really gets my goat that they say 'it can't be done', 'it would cost too much to administer', etc.

It is not that difficult a task to simply have all state run services/allowances linked to a database/PPS. They already have all the info they need - but just have not put it all together.

A database of 4 million odd entries is small by modern database standards. Initial data entry might take some time, but after that it's no more work than entry into whatever existing system each department uses.

As for administration to 'decide' who gets what, once all the info is in one place, these tasks can be mostly automated - i.e. if you have access to the following kinds of information in one place:

-> declared income (i.e from revenue / P60, etc)
-> taxes paid
-> number of dependents
-> registered as a carer/with a disability
-> total/recent years worked
-> total/recent years on dole

You can quickly calculate a persons 'need'. Any special cases could be quickly evaluated as all info is available.

The ability to put such a system in place is there. The will seems to be missing - maybe it would be 'too efficient' ?

Sleepy

Godge wrote: »

I would amend it slightly, no funding of this kind to private schools.

Would fully agree with that.

The children would be the ones to benefit. The parents that save CB for their skiing holiday would lose out, as would those who move out of Ireland, or those who drink or smoke it. The money would be going directly into the economy here giving a direct stimulus to the economy instead of a portion of it being saved or sent or spent abroad. In fact even implementing all of the above would probably allow the government to increase the amount spent directly in the economy but also save money on the cost to the government.

Exactly: cutting the amount spent wouldn't cut the benefits to those in receipt of the services. Painless cuts for all but those who drink / smoke the children's allowance at present (I wouldn't worry about those who don't need it and choose not to avail of the public education system - they're opting out and it's not an income tax).

tails_naf wrote: »

The ability to put such a system in place is there. The will seems to be missing - maybe it would be 'too efficient' ?

The technical side of the project is a walk in the park, a quick and dirty version of it would simply involve extracts from all systems that contain a PPS number being imported into a new data warehouse. Something I, or most other data professionals could do the technical work on in under a month tbh.

The problem is the difficulty of imposing business change in a number of large bureaucratic organisations. That it's public sector makes it harder (as unions get in the way more) but even in private sector businesses of such scale it would be a lengthy enough process. And that's before you even allow for the data protection lawyers who'll insist that different arms of the government constitute different legal entities and therefore aren't entitled to share the data (though perhaps this could be legislated for?).

sarumite

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Apparently Sweden has a very good state-funded childcare system.

I wonder if this money could be used to reform the childcare crisis in Ireland?

Swedes get the same regardless of income. The Swedes have excellent maternity leave, childcare services etc. However these are paid for by heavy taxation (both direct and indirect). As someone who lived and worked (and paid taxes) in Sweden for over 3 years, my personal experience was that Sweden is far from the socialist Mecca people make it out to be.

woodoo

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

In most other countries there is a proper support in place for working couples especially when childern are young. There are creshe and preschool setup that allow parents to work and it to cost them very little. This is not the case in Ireland it costs a couple about 10k/year to go to work and have even one child minded.

I think the whole payment should be scrapped and then directed towards services like, help with childcare for working families, child healthcare, education etc.

I am a little miffed by what Joan Burton is planning. Cutting it for better off people and topping it up for others. Who are these others and isn't the welfare system generous enough already. Nobody should be getting more childrens allowance. Just to spend on anything they please. Target the money properly.

Difference Engine

Direct provision is definitely the way forward. The money is being spent on what it is intended for rather drink/cigarettes/ski holidays.

There are a few advantages to this approach:

Savings through economies of scale possible as the state can negotiate with service providers.

Complications of means testing, taxing, etc., bypassed.

Goods and services can be sourced solely through Irish companies if feasible.

A child won't have to go without uniforms, schoolbooks or whatever other services would be provided because of poverty or parents drink or drug problems.

Farmer Pudsey

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd personally regard any family with an after-tax income of 60k per annum as being comfortable, 80k after tax as reasonably well off and 100k after tax as doing well. Rich would be a term I'd save for those with a net wealth of seven-figures or more as it's a term describing wealth rather than income.

Lets look at this a person on
60k takes home 48K
80K takes home 58.7K
100K takes home 68.3K

now the unemployment is worth about 38K so a well off comfortable working family on 60K have about 10K more a year less than 200 euro/week ( no extra payment like the unemployed had before). With this 10K they are supposed to keep childminders paid, transport to and from work (often entailing two cars) they will also have to pay doctors fees (no medical card),

When property tax come in it will be taken out of there pay as will water rates and when there kids go to colledge they will have to totally fund it themselves.

Costings
Childcare 2 kids @ 80 euro's/weekX 10 years = 83K
Doctors/dental/eyecare fees average =======5K
Property/water tax 750euro/20 years=======15K
3rd level education 10K/year for 9 years======90K


Now on top of that these are the coping class that will get caught for all sorts of fundraising/school contributations.

It will cost them about 100k/child to produce a future taxpayer because this is what they will be. As a society we contribute about 30k of that cost they will pay all the rest themselves

If they go on unemployment they will average 38K/year and still get the 30K over the eighteen years that CB is paid and if there child goes to 3rd level about 8.5k/years in support.They may well decide not to produce a future taxpayer but rather a fucture leech on the system

They also have to pay for transport to and from work at least another 5K/year and the additional cost of working.

Who is rich,comfortable and well off

whatawaster

It's an absolute disgrace that someone is able to receive benefit from the state for their EIGHT child. That person who cannot, without state help, raise that 8th child, should have stopped having children a long time ago. It's madness.

- End that madness, drastically cut the payments the more children a family has
- Bring in new child benefit rates for every child born more than 9 months after budget day. Child benefit should be drastically cut or removed completely, with savings diverted into childcare/school meals/school book schemes etc.
That way, anyone who is thinking of having a child cannot say they weren't warned. I understand that these things aren't always planned, but no one should try and have a child if they cannot look after it without a social welfare payment. It's a massive, grown-up decision, that I think too many people take lightly. We certainly shouldn't be putting incentives in place.

Voltex

Lets cut through all the crap and be honest about not just CB but social welfare in general.
Since Ireland signed up to the Euro one of our most basic tools to manage the economy through troughs and peaks (monetary policy) was taken away. Add to the mix that our fiscal policy management has been taken away from us by the Troika, all the usual mechanisms for managing a recession are gone.
In normal times the Goverment would be injecting money into the economy to stimulate activity through different means (QE, CapEx, Tax Breaks, Interest Rate), but because the State can not directly stimulate the economy through normal means, social welfare payments need to be looked at as another form of Goverment injection. If these payments were to be reduced or even taken away there will be an effect on the real economy!

pauldry

I have twins. They are 1 year old. Last year their 500Euro grant was taken away and I accept this grant is part of another time. They receive 1.5times the rate of standard child benefit per month. This is probably going to be cut in the budget meaning another €70 or €110 will be cut for my twins per month.

Have any of you know it alls ever considered the cost of raising twins. School books are no good to me now. I work but earn a small wage. I need to or I cant feed my kids. Very few jobs these days pay a lot of money. Without child benefit my children will suffer. I will pay my own taxes but childrens money should not be touched. Its the adults that should pay through another indirect system.

My babies are only 1.
They didnt cause this mess yet they are being punished.

Sorry daughter but I cant cure your sickness cause I cannot afford to buy the medicine to cure it even on medical card.

Sorry son you will have to wear that nappy again.

Of course Iwould never do this to my darling buds but since they decided to be born this report says they should be punished.

Is the right to be born now gone in Ireland. All you naysayers all got child benefit to bring you up and imagine how much worse your lives would be if you had not got it.

Sleepy

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Lets look at this a person on
60k takes home 48K
80K takes home 58.7K
100K takes home 68.3K

now the unemployment is worth about 38K so a well off comfortable working family on 60K have about 10K more a year less than 200 euro/week ( no extra payment like the unemployed had before). With this 10K they are supposed to keep childminders paid, transport to and from work (often entailing two cars) they will also have to pay doctors fees (no medical card),

When property tax come in it will be taken out of there pay as will water rates and when there kids go to colledge they will have to totally fund it themselves.

Costings
Childcare 2 kids @ 80 euro's/weekX 10 years = 83K
Doctors/dental/eyecare fees average =======5K
Property/water tax 750euro/20 years=======15K
3rd level education 10K/year for 9 years======90K


Now on top of that these are the coping class that will get caught for all sorts of fundraising/school contributations.

It will cost them about 100k/child to produce a future taxpayer because this is what they will be. As a society we contribute about 30k of that cost they will pay all the rest themselves

If they go on unemployment they will average 38K/year and still get the 30K over the eighteen years that CB is paid and if there child goes to 3rd level about 8.5k/years in support.They may well decide not to produce a future taxpayer but rather a fucture leech on the system

They also have to pay for transport to and from work at least another 5K/year and the additional cost of working.

Who is rich,comfortable and well off

Re-read my post. I said after tax income.

Rodin

Sleepy wrote: »

Re-read my post. I said after tax]/b] income.

A public sector worker on 60k certainly does not take home 48k. It'd be between 30-40k.
Pension levy, universal social charge, tax at 48% . . .

Trampas

kceire wrote: »

What about the pre-school years?

that included. I don't have kids myself but things like that should be offered instead of cash

kippy

Rodin wrote: »

A public sector worker on 60k certainly does not take home 48k. It'd be between 30-40k.
Pension levy, universal social charge, tax at 48% . . .

Have a re-read of Sleepys original post on the matter.

Gumbo

Rodin wrote: »

A public sector worker on 60k certainly does not take home 48k. It'd be between 30-40k.
Pension levy, universal social charge, tax at 48% . . .

Sleepy was talking about after tax wages, not PS or PrvS, its after tax wages.

PS, but you are correct a PS employee on 60k will take home 40k after taxes, pension contributions, pension levy etc

Farmer Pudsey

Sleepy wrote: »

Re-read my post. I said after tax]/b] income.

I misread your post however it is very hard to deal with after tax income when you take health insurance,mortgage intrest relief.pension tax relief, union contributations etc It is up to every invidual to make choices with there income on drink car houses men or women.

Rodin wrote: »

A public sector worker on 60k certainly does not take home 48k. It'd be between 30-40k.
Pension levy, universal social charge, tax at 48% . . .

I use a tax calculator to get the income after tax this would include tax, PRSI, USC. The only difference is the pension levy between public and private workers. Private workers also pay into pension funds snd would be more than happy to pay a pension levy that would entitle trhem to a public service pension of the level that public servants get.

Gumbo

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I use a tax calculator to get the income after tax this would include tax, PRSI, USC. The only difference is the pension levy between public and private workers. Private workers also pay into pension funds snd would be more than happy to pay a pension levy that would entitle trhem to a public service pension of the level that public servants get.

Your forgetting about the Pension Contributions which is extra to the Pension Levy and in place before the Pension Levy.