Should half of children's allowance be given to the fathers?

iptba

There is discussion about children's allowance in the media at the moment and whether it should be cut.

It was mentioned that this is important money for women to look after their children. The idea of giving giving it to women generally seems to be that men can't be relied upon to look after their children and that they might drink all their money and not leave enough for their children. It occured to me that this seems to be a very negative view of men, tarring all men with the one (negative) brush.

I also think it's fair to say that some women can also not be great with managing money and sometimes spend money on what might be considered unnecessary things.

Also the idea of giving the money to women was because they weren't working. However, there isn't a huge difference in workforce participation with 63.3% of men working (in figures I saw for 2011) and 55.0% of women.

If the money was divided in half, it would mean that even if one parent was not good with money, the other would still have half the money.

What do people think?

Irish_Elect_Eng

No,I don't think that the payment should be halved between the two parents.

However I think that it should be given to the primary carer, and that their sex or eve relationship to the child should not be relevant.

I don't have a issue with the payment being made to the mother after the birth, but it should be possible to have the payment transferred to the other parent or indeed a grandparent or guardian in the case where the primary carer is different from the birth mother.

sky2424

No- I think it is irrelevant. As long as the payment is spent on maintaining the child, what does it matter which gender handles the money.

Unfortunetly no one can guarantee that it will be spent correctly but worrying about gender divides wont help. Aside from that, from a practical POV it makes little sense. "Oh Ill buy little Jimmys milk this week with my half if you buy his pasta with your half.":rolleyes:

OU812

The payment is to the child, not either payment.

It was initially introduced because the fathers generally were drinkers, leaving the family short.

boobar

iptba wrote: »

There is discussion about children's allowance in the media at the moment and whether it should be cut.

It was mentioned that this is important money for women to look after their children. The idea of giving giving it to women generally seems to be that men can't be relied upon to look after their children and that they might drink all their money and not leave enough for their children. It occured to me that this seems to be a very negative view of men, tarring all men with the one (negative) brush.

I also think it's fair to say that some women can also not be great with managing money and sometimes spend money on what might be considered unnecessary things.

Also the idea of giving the money to women was because they weren't working. However, there isn't a huge difference in workforce participation with 63.3% of men working (in figures I saw for 2011) and 55.0% of women.

If the money was divided in half, it would mean that even if one parent was not good with money, the other would still have half the money.

What do people think?

I've heard this mentioned a few times, the child benefit being paid to the woman. I'm a father and my partner and I agreed that the child benefit be paid into my account. So, I think that in most but not all cases the mother receives the payment. But at the end of the day the payment is for the child so it doesn't matter which account it goes into.

Liam McPoyle

Once the money is been used for the designed purpose ie the welfare of the child it doesn't matter a jot who gets it imo.

krudler

If I had a penny for every time I hear someone say "Yeah that bill will be paid on childrens allowance day" I'd have..a sh1tload of pennies.

mother_of_two

This money is for the child, so whoever takes care of the child should have this money. Doesn't matter - mother or father.

hawkwind23

its not really about the money.
whoever holds the child benefit is deemed the primary carer for a host of benefits.
social housing , tax credits etc etc.

this can become problematic if both parents want to share custody on a 50/50 basis.
the holder of the child benefit is the only one eligible to apply for tax reliefs/credits etc.

for example the mother holds the CB and resides in the family home , the father must rent and have a 2/3 bedroom property for the kids , he cannot apply for social housing.

the new legislation in the UK regarding housing occupancy will cause problems for single fathers.
a single father on benefits will not have full rent paid on a 2 bed property.

the law is very outdated in these matters and will not be changing anything anytime soon

Feathers

krudler wrote: »

If I had a penny for every time I hear someone say "Yeah that bill will be paid on childrens allowance day" I'd have..a sh1tload of pennies.

Don't really see a problem with this tbh…

I'd much prefer see a parent buy little Jimmy his new shoes when he needs them and pay the electricity bill on "Children's allowance day" than the other way around.

Honey-ec

iptba wrote: »

What do people think?

It doesn't automatically got to the mother, so I don't really see what your point is.

iptba

Honey-ec wrote: »

It doesn't automatically got to the mother, so I don't really see what your point is.

Does it "automatically" get divided half and half? The default position is that it is given to the mother.

TheChizler

I suppose it saves a bit in administration costs, the mother will in most cases be the primary carer for the child, when unfortunately the father mightn't always be around. But how does it automatically go to the mother? Can the father not apply for it? How about setting up an account in the child's name? That's what happened for my family.

iptba

TheChizler wrote: »

How about setting up an account in the child's name? That's what happened for my family.

That's a very responsible way of doing it. But I don't think that is the norm.

ehcocmeo

My Father drank our family into poverty... ABSOLUTELY NO way should the money be given to Fathers.

Now I know some women are not saints as well. But on Balance I think Mothers manage money better and look after kids better. My wife and I have it paid into our joint bank account and she uses it to pay part of the 1200 a month Child care bill.

But sadly in Ireland often times the children's allowance does not reach the child at all. When you see Centra putting on alcohol promotions during the week the CA is collected then its speaks volumes.

Reality is that Children get more real care from their Mothers and their Fathers. Not all the time, But I would say a good 80% of the time.

Pherekydes

iptba wrote: »

Does it "automatically" get divided half and half? The default position is that it is given to the mother.

It goes, as it should, to the primary carer.

Pherekydes

ehcocmeo wrote: »

My Father drank our family into poverty... ABSOLUTELY NO way should the money be given to Fathers.

It was given to me when the children's mother left the country. There are good and bad parents of either gender.

iptba

Pherekydes wrote: »

It goes ... to the primary carer.

Not sure that is the case if it's a stay-at-home father, for example.

Annasopra

krudler wrote: »

If I had a penny for every time I hear someone say "Yeah that bill will be paid on childrens allowance day" I'd have..a sh1tload of pennies.

Like the mortgage that puts the roof over a childs head?

golden lane

it should be stopped altogether.....it is the most stupid. costly, administrative idea ever invented....

Equality

Yes.

It should be divided equally between both parents.

The fact that it is the mother who gets the child benefit has implications for the old age pension rights of the father, if he is a stay at home parent and his wife works. This is inequitable.

If a society wants fathers to take a part in raising their children, then they need equal rights as well as equal responsibilities. We expect fathers to pay child support, they are required to accept this responsibility, but they should also have equal rights with regard to the child. These rights include child benefit.

On another related note, I would prefer child benefit to be put directly towards the child, so as to remove the possibility that either parent would drink it. This can be done by providing school meals to all children, and cutting the child benefit. Then at least the kids get to eat. For pre-school children, put the money towards free pre-school, with a requirement that the pre-school feed the child.