Child Benefit

Tim Robbins

ShooterSF wrote: »

Why should all children be afforded free health care? I'd accept an argument that we might need to adjust the means test parents have to go through if it's putting some kids at risk but we already give children's allowance to people in society that don't need it. I'd rather not see more waste.

1. Because they have no earning potential
2. Because you can't take risks with their health.

Very few people getting children's allowance don't need it.

ShooterSF

Tim Robbins wrote: »

1. Because they have no earning potential
2. Because you can't take risks with their health.

Very few people getting children's allowance don't need it.

Of course they have no earning potential that's because they are in the care of their guardians. I just don't see why a child who has parents earning high wages should get free healthcare while an adult on wages just above minimum wage can't. It's the states job in our country to look out for the vulnerable and many children are not vulnerable as they have people who can take care of them. Now maybe a scheme that would have the state pay medical bills and then reduce parents' tax credits temporarily to pay it back over weeks/months might work as €60+ out of the blue can put people under short term strain (and those it would put under long term strain should be getting medical cards). But I'm opposed to free healthcare to all children.

Tim Robbins

ShooterSF wrote: »

Of course they have no earning potential that's because they are in the care of their guardians. I just don't see why a child who has parents earning high wages should get free healthcare while an adult on wages just above minimum wage can't.

How many parents do you estimate don't need this money?

It's the states job in our country to look out for the vulnerable and many children are not vulnerable as they have people who can take care of them. Now maybe a scheme that would have the state pay medical bills and then reduce parents' tax credits temporarily to pay it back over weeks/months might work as €60+ out of the blue can put people under short term strain (and those it would put under long term strain should be getting medical cards). But I'm opposed to free healthcare to all children.

Why pick on children's health?

Perhaps rich people families shouldn't be entitled to any form of free education, free water and perhaps you could also charge them for boards.ie?

ShooterSF

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How many parents do you estimate don't need this money?

It would be pointless for me to pull a number out of the air but people that are above a level where they should need state support. Anecdotal example ahead warning: If I see someone dropping their kids to school in a new SUV they could have bought a cheaper car, not received state support and still be in the same position. People that can afford luxury shouldn't be getting handouts. It's stupid.

After all a welfare state is set up to protect the actual needy. Not as a hand out system.

Why pick on children's health?

I'm not. I'm picking on the idea that all of them need or should get free health care. I'm not chasing kids around with vials of anthrax!

Perhaps rich people families shouldn't be entitled to any form of free education, free water and perhaps you could also charge them for boards.ie?

Free education is beneficial. It provides an equal footing and actually helps children of poor families to perhaps change such circumstances. It is also good for the economy to have an educated workforce.

Water should not be free. I'd suggest a certain amount provided free, well paid for by taxes it's never really free, afterwards you should pay per litre or such yourself.

Boards? That's just silly.

Tim Robbins

ShooterSF wrote: »

It would be pointless for me to pull a number out of the air but people that are above a level where they should need state support. Anecdotal example ahead warning: If I see someone dropping their kids to school in a new SUV they could have bought a cheaper car, not received state support and still be in the same position. People that can afford luxury shouldn't be getting handouts. It's stupid.

Well you mix in better circles than me.

Any parent I know is skint. Mainly because of the property crash. Many are earning well above average industrial wage but still skint because of high mortgages and child care costs.

Think about this way.

You have two kids: child care 1600 a month min.
You have a mortgage: 1400 - 2000 a month.

Meaning 3,000 minimum required after tax. That equates to a salary of say about 60K.

So, say the couple is earning 90K between them (that's pretty good both people above industrial wage). 60K gone. Left with 30K gross. Probably about 2K a month max to cover all food, mgt fees, bills, car tax, car insurance, petrol, gp fees, health insurance for four people.

Reality check: there are very few people where child benefit would not make a difference. Possibly 2%.

Dades

I'm with you on child benefit, TR. It's the one thing the crippled middle class get back from the huge tax burden they bear.

Newaglish

One of the main reasons high earning families need child benefit is because they've always had it. If they didn't receive this extra money they could easily have spent a little less on long term fixed expenses (like mortgages) and managed perfectly fine.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

I'm with you on child benefit, TR. It's the one thing the crippled middle class get back from the huge tax burden they bear.

The last place I lived - 2 bed apartment - my wife bought peak of them boom. It was full of young families in negative equity and HSE single mothers - some of whom did no work and spent most of the week watching tv and in some case boyriend living there.

Taking child benefit away from working parents is another kick in the teeth. I would suggest anyone saying go a few months paying a mortgage and child care fees.

Gbear

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well you mix in better circles than me.

Any parent I know is skint. Mainly because of the property cash. Many are earning well above average industrial wage but still skint because of high mortgages and child care costs.

The high mortgages didn't come from nowhere. If people had gambled all their money on horses or in a casino and came hat in hand they'd be told to **** off.
Ignorance is no excuse. It was their money and it was their decision to indebt themselves.
The government might have encouraged it but that's their prerogative. They were subsequently voted out.
Banks might have facilitated it but if they functioned like actual businesses they would've fallen on their swords and paid for their incompetence and, on occasion, fraud.

The astronomical mortgage was just as much of a decision as the fancy new car. I don't know why there's a stigma with spending money on trinkets like cars and phones but bankrupting yourself with a mortgage is supposed to garner sympathy.


A protest vote in a referendum is completely illogical.
It's just cutting your nose off to spite your face.
The only relevant question is "do you agree with this proposal". It doesn't matter how it's presented, it doesn't matter who agrees with you and it doesn't matter what the government did in the past.

Tim Robbins

Gbear wrote: »

The high mortgages didn't come from nowhere. If people had gambled all their money on horses or in a casino and came hat in hand they'd be told to **** off.
Ignorance is no excuse. It was their money and it was their decision to indebt themselves.

Stupid argument. People were buying homes in a market that had increased for 20 years in a row. Compounding the problem was the really high costs of rents. These were about 50% higher than they are today.

*Nobody* not even David McWilliams knew exactly when the downturn was going to happen and how bad it was going to be.

Then taxes drastically increased and wages decreased.

Usually (even today) - underwriters will stress you for a 2% increase in interest rates. They do not stress you for 30% deduction in take home pay and the child care costs (when children come along in a few years times) which in many cases can be over 2K a month.

Tim Robbins

Newaglish wrote: »

One of the main reasons high earning families need child benefit is because they've always had it. If they didn't receive this extra money they could easily have spent a little less on long term fixed expenses (like mortgages) and managed perfectly fine.

I challenge people making arguments like this to produce numbers instead of rhetoric. In case you don't have kids the childcare costs are at least 800 euro a month. And nappies, extra food, GP visits - 400 euro a month.

So please tell me at costs of 1,200 a month per child how your numbers add up?

Child benefit is only 150 a month. So the parents are still paying 1,050.

It sounds like you just resent people who have children. Because there is no substance in any of your arguments.

OldNotWIse

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well you mix in better circles than me.

Any parent I know is skint. Mainly because of the property crash. Many are earning well above average industrial wage but still skint because of high mortgages and child care costs.

Think about this way.

You have two kids: child care 1600 a month min.
You have a mortgage: 1400 - 2000 a month.

Meaning 3,000 minimum required after tax. That equates to a salary of say about 60K.

So, say the couple is earning 90K between them (that's pretty good both people above industrial wage). 60K gone. Left with 30K gross. Probably about 2K a month max to cover all food, mgt fees, bills, car tax, car insurance, petrol, gp fees, health insurance for four people.

Reality check: there are very few people where child benefit would not make a difference. Possibly 2%.

Sorry but what does that have to do with child benefit? Is child benefit now some form of compensation for ridiculous mortgages? Also 2000k per month on a mortgage with a combined income of 90k? Madness.

Dades

There might have been an argument 5-10 years ago to cut child benefit for most people, however not these days. A lot of the same people who worked hard to fund the state coffers are very stretched financially (and paying even more tax) and it would be a real f*ck you to take that small benefit off them now it has become an important extra every month.

I'm all for means-testing it in theory, however my fear would be that they would set the bar too low because people have a pre-conception that because you earn X amount you must be minted.

Yes, someone driving a fancy new SUV clearly isn't strapped, but in terms of housing people have to live somewhere and back in the day both rent and mortgage costs were exorbitant (and most still are).

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

Yes, someone driving a fancy new SUV clearly isn't strapped, but in terms of housing people have to live somewhere and back in the day both rent and mortgage costs were exorbitant (and most still are).

I think if someone making that argument had a look at the registration plates driving around, or the trouble car sellers are unders they would quickly realise there is not many new cars - or new SUVs on being sold these days.

It's a pretty lame argument. Out of about 40 - 50 parents I know, I only know one with a new car. And that was because his last car broke down after 150K on it.

Fact is only about 1% of parents fall into this category and they have paid a sh*t load on VRT.

It's awful that the tabloid media have allowed parents to be attacked. People who are too busy - unlike teachers, students and pensioners - to march on the dail.

Tim Robbins

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Sorry but what does that have to do with child benefit? Is child benefit now some form of compensation for ridiculous mortgages? Also 2000k per month on a mortgage with a combined income of 90k? Madness.

90K was a lot more when taxes where lower. And to complete my example I stuck to the lower level of 1,400 a month.

Rents were only very slightly lower than these mortgage repayments. Child benefit pertains to the child. A cost of a child is 1,200 a month.
If you are saying a couple with 90K salaries between them should never consider a 2K a mortgage - well then you have to be consistent. Because you are effectively saying they can't afford two children (2,400 a month) - even if the mortgage is 0 euro per month!!

equivariant

Gbear wrote: »

The astronomical mortgage was just as much of a decision as the fancy new car. I don't know why there's a stigma with spending money on trinkets like cars and phones but bankrupting yourself with a mortgage is supposed to garner sympathy.

Because providing a place for your children to live in is not quite equivalent to buying a f*****g iPhone 5.

OldNotWIse

Tim Robbins wrote: »

90K was a lot more when taxes where lower. And to complete my example I stuck to the lower level of 1,400 a month.

Rents were only very slightly lower than these mortgage repayments. Child benefit pertains to the child. A cost of a child is 1,200 a month.
If you are saying a couple with 90K salaries between them should never consider a 2K a mortgage - well then you have to be consistent. Because you are effectively saying they can't afford two children (2,400 a month) - even if the mortgage is 0 euro per month!!

I never paid more than 1100 rent in my life and I certainly did not live in any dog boxes.

Of course child benefit pertains to the child - that was my point. It's for the child, not for the gaping hole that's left because the parents were happy to get tied into a huge mortgage.

OldNotWIse

equivariant wrote: »

Because providing a place for your children to live in is not quite equivalent to buying a f*****g iPhone 5.

I'm sure plenty of parents living in rented accomodation would take offence at the implication that they have not provided somewhere for their children to live.

Tim Robbins

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I never paid more than 1100 rent in my life and I certainly did not live in any dog boxes.

A 3 bed to rent in the boom would have been a lot more than 1100.
A 4 bed higher again. So unless you expect the entire family to live in a one bed - you are going to paying a lot of dosh on rent.

Of course child benefit pertains to the child - that was my point. It's for the child, not for the gaping hole that's left because the parents were happy to get tied into a huge mortgage.

The child benefit only contributes to 10% of the cost associated with a child. The parents pay the other 90%. What you are saying is to make the parents pay even more toward the child. Even those these parents who don't have much cash left over after paying the mortgage and increased taxes.

No parent goes out to have children to get child benefit so they can pay their mortgage - that's nonsense.

OldNotWIse

Tim Robbins wrote: »

A 3 bed to rent in the boom would have been a lot more than 1100.
A 4 bed higher again. So unless you expect the entire family to live in a one bed - you are going to paying a lot of dosh on rent.


The child benefit only contributes to 10% of the cost associated with a child. The parents pay the other 90%. What you are saying is to make the parents pay even more toward the child. Even those these parents who don't have much cash left over after paying the mortgage and increased taxes.

No parent goes out to have children to get child benefit so they can pay their mortgage - that's nonsense.

Never said that.

I simply take issue with someone saying "I deserve child benefit because I have a large mortgage". You dont. You deserve child benefit because you have a child. The name kind of gives it away.

Dades

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I simply take issue with someone saying "I deserve child benefit because I have a large mortgage". You dont. You deserve child benefit because you have a child. The name kind of gives it away.

I think we're getting too hung up on mortgages here.

IMO certain parents deserve child benefit because they pay a shítload of tax to pay to run this country and still find themselves stretched due to the costs of living and the reduction in take-home pay.

Does anyone want to throw a figure out that they would consider as a cut-off in a means test? Or will nobody put their money where someone else's mouth is?

Otherwise this discussion is rudderless.

OldNotWIse

Dades wrote: »

I think we're getting too hung up on mortgages here.

IMO certain parents deserve child benefit because they pay a shítload of tax to pay to run this country and still find themselves stretched due to the costs of living and the reduction in take-home pay.

Does anyone want to throw a figure out that they would consider as a cut-off in a means test? Or will nobody put their money where someone else's mouth is?

Otherwise this discussion is rudderless.

Remember that childless couples pay these taxes too. Plenty of people are stretched.

I'm not sure what the cut off would be tbh. Anyone with children have any input?

Would it not be wiser to use the money for childrens allowance to fund things specifically for children.

For example free school books. Start school dinners. Pay something towards creche/childcare costs etc. Free school buses or after school activities/study sessions etc. Just one idea, though I'll probably be shot

Tim Robbins

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm not sure what the cut off would be tbh. Anyone with children have any input?

Sure - couple earns over 200K per year combined.

Would it not be wiser to use the money for childrens allowance to fund things specifically for children.

Well they already get the pre school thing. Parents should get something themselves.

OldNotWIse

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Sure - couple earns over 200K per year combined.


Well they already get the pre school thing. Parents should get something themselves.

Why? I thought the children's allowance was for children. Otherwise it should be called the "parents allowance".

Tim Robbins

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Why? I thought the children's allowance was for children. Otherwise it should be called the "parents allowance".

Sorry I worded that badly. Parents should get *some* decision making.

So say you have two kids. The second kid can use the first kids clothes.
Whereas the first kid needs new clothes unless you have a cousin nearby.

Too many variables, so the parents should get some decision making. The state already decides pre-school, education etc.

OldNotWIse

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Sorry I worded that badly. Parents should get *some* decision making.

So say you have two kids. The second kid can use the first kids clothes.
Whereas the first kid needs new clothes unless you have a cousin nearby.

Too many variables, so the parents should get some decision making. The state already decides pre-school, education etc.

What is childrens allowance? 140 pm? I dont understnad why anyone would object to this being used for childcare or, if the child is not being cared for by someone else, for school books etc. There's hardly going to be anything left over and the allowance is for the child so I dont see why there would be an objection?

Parents have the decision making power when it comes to their own money. If the state is going to subsidise the cost of raising a child, it should be allowed to decide the means and methods thereof.

Tim Robbins

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What is childrens allowance? 140 pm? I dont understnad why anyone would object to this being used for childcare or, if the child is not being cared for by someone else, for school books etc. There's hardly going to be anything left over and the allowance is for the child so I dont see why there would be an objection?

Parents have the decision making power when it comes to their own money. If the state is going to subsidise the cost of raising a child, it should be allowed to decide the means and methods thereof.

Should the state decide what you feed your child as well?

Get real...

I hate to sound patronizing - but I can't help thinking people who make these arguments have no children.

OldNotWIse

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Should the state decide what you feed your child as well?

Get real...

I hate to sound patronizing - but I can't help thinking people who make these arguments have no children.

Get real? oh seriously that's such a non-insult, non-valid-point washed up aul' overused phrase.

Whether I have children or not is not relevant to the discussion, though if you want to point score on the basis of having pro created I think you have lost credibility tbh.

I never suggested that the state decide what to feed anyone's child - now you are just being reactionary.

Question: If you are paying 800 per month on childcare and receiving 140 per month from the state, why would you complain if suddenly you are not receiving anything from the state directly into your account and only paying 660 in childcare?

Newaglish

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Should the state decide what you feed your child as well?

Get real...

I hate to sound patronizing - but I can't help thinking people who make these arguments have no children.

Oh here we go. The ability to use logic and critical thinking is not determined by your ability to reproduce.

Gbear

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Stupid argument. People were buying homes in a market that had increased for 20 years in a row. Compounding the problem was the really high costs of rents. These were about 50% higher than they are today.

*Nobody* not even David McWilliams knew exactly when the downturn was going to happen and how bad it was going to be.

You don't need to know exactly. The obvious insanity that the prices were heading towards from the mid 2000's was totally out of proportion with anything that had happened before.

People's eyes lit up and thought "I can make millions off houses too". They were burned, as happens when you try to tag along in an economic fad after you've missed the boat.
Some people were scared into buying into it because their thick parents and friends told them that they "had to get onto the property ladder". They should kick everyone up the arse who give them that ****ty advice but ultimately the buck stops with them. If you're investing hundred's of thousands of pounds it's your place to be informed.
Usually, if it's easy to make money it's easy to lose it. People are paying for their naivety.

One of my sisters friends was absolutely sure they wanted to buy some ****ty terraced house for 500k. My dad furiously tried to persuade them to buy a bit of land and build a house for half that instead. They didn't listen and now they've ****ed off to Australia under a cloud of debt.

equivariant wrote: »

Because providing a place for your children to live in is not quite equivalent to buying a f*****g iPhone 5.

Talking about somewhere for your children to sleep is a sure-fire indicator for emotion-driven ****e.
Buying a place you can't afford is equivalent to any other frivolous spending.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Rents were only very slightly lower than these mortgage repayments.

The point is, you're at most confined to pay rent for the duration of your lease and after that you have no mortgage. That is far more important than the monthly cost.

My family has rented and got a good deal at that for the past 10 years in various places. They have no mortgage. When their lease runs out my parents will probably go back into the buyers market. Why? Because they looked at the prices and instead of saying "I want a bit of that" they said "**** that, I'm not gambling my future away on what is clearly a bubble".

Do we know much about economics in my house? Only enough to know that we don't know anything about economics. When you don't even have that you start making stupid risky decisions.

joseph brand

Gbear wrote: »

You don't need to know exactly. The obvious insanity that the prices were heading towards from the mid 2000's was totally out of proportion with anything that had happened before.

People's eyes lit up and thought "I can make millions off houses too". They were burned, as happens when you try to tag along in an economic fad after you've missed the boat.
Some people were scared into buying into it because their thick parents and friends told them that they "had to get onto the property ladder". They should kick everyone up the arse who give them that ****ty advice but ultimately the buck stops with them. If you're investing hundred's of thousands of pounds it's your place to be informed.
Usually, if it's easy to make money it's easy to lose it. People are paying for their naivety.

A family home isn't an investment. Unless you're talking about people who bought second homes with a view to renting?

An old friend bought a house close by about 6 years ago. It's a corner house with 4 beds here in Navan. After about a year living there, on his own, he decided to move in with his gf in Dublin. (She is living in a council house as a single mother, not his kid). He has since rented out his house to a family. I'm no expert but I assume his rent* is cheap in this council house, and I reckon it's not really legal.
This guy used to regularly complain about foreigners coming here, getting free money. The hypocrisy is palpable.

*I presume his rent is so cheap, it's free! :mad:

Tim Robbins

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Get real? oh seriously that's such a non-insult, non-valid-point washed up aul' overused phrase.

Whether I have children or not is not relevant to the discussion, though if you want to point score on the basis of having pro created I think you have lost credibility tbh.

All the people who give out child of benefit have no frames of references. Somebody knows someone who is driving a new SUV and thinks this represents a large enough people in society.

Question: If you are paying 800 per month on childcare and receiving 140 per month from the state, why would you complain if suddenly you are not receiving anything from the state directly into your account and only paying 660 in childcare?

That's just like saying sure what would you care if your mortgage, car insurance or whatever went up another 140 euro per month.

OldNotWIse

Tim Robbins wrote: »

All the people who give out child of benefit have no frames of references. Somebody knows someone who is driving a new SUV and thinks this represents a large enough people in society.


That's just like saying sure what would you care if your mortgage, car insurance or whatever went up another 140 euro per month.

What are you talking about??


ps what's a "frame of referece"? A child? Is that not just a regurgitation or your original "people with children have better opinions" post?

Tim Robbins

Gbear wrote: »

People's eyes lit up and thought "I can make millions off houses too".

This is like the SUV comment. Some people mix in different circles. I don't know anyone who thought that.

The point is, you're at most confined to pay rent for the duration of your lease and after that you have no mortgage. That is far more important than the monthly cost.

Yeah but in Ireland the tennant has very little rights.
They don't get a vote on the management company, they don't get guarantees that their rent won't go up by more than inflation and most Irish landlords are awful.

My family has rented and got a good deal at that for the past 10 years in various places. They have no mortgage. When their lease runs out my parents will probably go back into the buyers market. Why? Because they looked at the prices and instead of saying "I want a bit of that" they said "**** that, I'm not gambling my future away on what is clearly a bubble".

Ok cut child benefit because your parents can read the market.
Wow.

Tim Robbins

Newaglish wrote: »

Oh here we go. The ability to use logic and critical thinking is not determined by your ability to reproduce.

Well perhaps we might here something than I saw someone drive a SUV who has received child benefit.

Your frames of references change when you have kids. Ask anyone who has had them.

OldNotWIse

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is like the SUV comment. Some people mix in different circles. I don't know anyone who thought that.



Yeah but in Ireland the tennant has very little rights.
They don't get a vote on the management company, they don't get guarantees that their rent won't go up by more than inflation and most Irish landlords are awful.


Ok cut child benefit because your parents can read the market.
Wow.

Wow is right - that's almost as ridiculous as saying, "I deserve child benefit because I can't read the market"

Tim Robbins

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Wow is right - that's almost as ridiculous as saying, "I deserve child benefit because I can't read the market"

If you are a smart ass and you managed to escape negative equity and a celtic tiger mortgage, you are probably saving about 300 euro a month.

Your biggest costs will be childcare.

I think part of the problem with childless people is because this is called "benefit", they think that someone is making money out of it. If you are a married and your spouse does not work, you do not receive "benefit" that single people berate you about. Instead of receiving a measly "benefit" you receive a measly tax credit. Perhaps, this is they way it should be done for children. As there are some serious misunderstandings coming from the childless.

I find it hard to believe they put shouting as loud about tax credits for children. There are so many other stupid things you get tax credits for - it might bring a bit of objectivity to the debate.

OldNotWIse

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If you are a smart ass and you managed to escape negative equity and a celtic tiger mortgage, you are probably saving about 300 euro a month.

Your biggest costs will be childcare.

I think part of the problem with childless people is because this is called "benefit", they think that someone is making money out of it. If you are a married and your spouse does not work, you do not receive "benefit" that single people berate you about. Instead of receiving a measly "benefit" you receive a measly tax credit. Perhaps, this is they way it should be done for children. As there are some serious misunderstandings coming from the childless.

You really have something against childless people dont you? It doesn't matter what is said to you, once you know someone is childless, you automatically dismiss their argument on the basis that they have no "frame of reference". I wonder if there is any point even responding to you tbh.

I like the way you talk about "escaping" negative equity, as if celtic tiger mortgages were some form of mandatory imposition as opposed to a choice that people made and whose consequences they are now unwillingly to live with.

Newaglish

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well perhaps we might here something than I saw someone drive a SUV who has received child benefit.

Your frames of references change when you have kids. Ask anyone who has had them.

Your first sentence makes absolutely zero sense.

On the second point; to become an economist or economic policy maker, do you think it should be a requirement to have kids? Because of all the secret extra "frames of reference"?

The only thing that changes when you have children is your bias switches from one position to another. That's why people should deal with facts and logical arguments, and not emotional ones.

Newaglish

PS If childcare is such an almighty hassle, stay at home and mind them yourself. If you need the extra income to pay a huge mortgage, that's not a sufficient reason for additional government benefits.

Dades

Everyone calm down a bit.

Tim - phrases like "Get Real" aren't conducive to civilised discussion.

Also, this isn't a house price issue. Yes, people are paying big mortgages, but many that didn't buy are paying big rents. The fact is it's expensive to own OR rent a family home. The most relevant factors here are childcare, decreased salaries and increased taxes. Can we drop that side issue now?

OldNotWIse wrote: »

What is childrens allowance? 140 pm? I dont understnad why anyone would object to this being used for childcare or, if the child is not being cared for by someone else, for school books etc. There's hardly going to be anything left over and the allowance is for the child so I dont see why there would be an objection?

Parents have the decision making power when it comes to their own money. If the state is going to subsidise the cost of raising a child, it should be allowed to decide the means and methods thereof.

The problem with using money saved from Child Benefit paid to *certain* families is that if it's taken away it will (a) not be respent on anything to do with children at all and disappear into a huge hole left by some bank, or (b) be offered only to those who qualify for other state payments already.

Simply put, take away the €140 a month and a lot of families will never see a single cent of it in benefit again.

Newaglish wrote: »

PS If childcare is such an almighty hassle, stay at home and mind them yourself. If you need the extra income to pay a huge mortgage, that's not a sufficient reason for additional government benefits.

Then the economy has two less taxpayers, which would seem a net loss for all.

Obliq

Perhaps the CB should be means tested on a "living within your means" basis?! A bit difficult to achieve maybe . Could be structured on the car you drive, eg. Any parent who owns a car worth over 15,000 shouldn't get child benefit.

Sorry, a bit tongue in cheek, but you'll never hash out how to treat people who act like having an SUV, beauty salon treatments and gym membership are human rights. We all know there are plenty of people out there who are mortgaged to the hilt but still manage to buy a new sofa at 2,000, drive an audi AND get child benefit. There's no way of taking it away from this crowd of idiots who have/had more money than sense without affecting those in the same bracket who genuinely cut back on their lifestyles but are seriously stuck in negative equity.

OldNotWIse

Dades wrote: »

Everyone calm down a bit.


The problem with using money saved from Child Benefit paid to *certain* families is that if it's taken away it will (a) not be respent on anything to do with children at all and disappear into a huge hole left by some bank, or (b) be offered only to those who qualify for other state payments already.

Simply put, take away the €140 a month and a lot of families will never see a single cent of it in benefit again.

Then the economy has two less taxpayers, which would seem a net loss for all.

"Certain" families? Isn't it paid for all children?

Also, on what basis do you say that it will not be re-spent on children?

Simply put, take away the 140 a month from the family and give it directly to the child through free school books, meals, clothing, childcare etc and there will be plenty of children who now see no benefit, who will suddenly see a benefit. Like I said, if you are already spending it on your child and the government then puts mechanisms in place to spend it directly on your child instead, why would you have a problem??

Tim Robbins

Exactly even if there was no crash, the mortgages would still be big.
And people getting rents or mortgages in post crash society are still paying a lot of money.

Fact is, to run a family is expensive. Roo expensive. If you want 2 kids - I outlined some sample figures that make the cases that if anything child benefit should be more. I wold prefer it to be tax credit and get rid of the word benefit. I would hate to see the reaction if the tax credit you receive if your wife stayed at home was called "wife benefit".

Gbear

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is like the SUV comment. Some people mix in different circles. I don't know anyone who thought that.

I realised that and I also added people who bought foolishly because they followed bad advice.
Regardless of their motivations, they made a bad choice. Some people just didn't know they were gambling.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yeah but in Ireland the tennant has very little rights.
They don't get a vote on the management company, they don't get guarantees that their rent won't go up by more than inflation and most Irish landlords are awful.

That's hilarious. Ireland has it completely slanted to the tenants. We have a ludicrous number of rights. You should try France if you think we're bad.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ok cut child benefit because your parents can read the market.
Wow.

No. My parents couldn't read the market. People who could read the market bought at the start of the boom, sold at the height and made a huge profit. My parents just realised it was a dangerous game to even be trying to play.

On a moral level, people need to be punished for making poor decisions. Whether it's overspending on booze, fags, cars or houses you can't afford the point is the same.

Ultimately, we can't just leave people starving, especially children but I thought the point was, to bring it back to the referendum, the absurdity of blaming the institution of government when the individual culpability and ignorance were the biggest factors, just as they always are and that people trying to make a protest against the government should more often be looking closer to home for who to blame.

Dades

OldNotWIse wrote: »

"Certain" families? Isn't it paid for all children?

Yes it is - I didn't realise you were advocating removing it from everyone.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Like I said, if you are already spending it on your child and the government then puts mechanisms in place to spend it directly on your child instead, why would you have a problem??

Mainly, I don't trust the government to do anything of the sort.

There are a lot of people relying on it for food, heating, clothes, etc. Taking benefit from some families will put them on the streets. Also, a lot of the stuff you mentioned spending the money on is already free or covered in some cases by other allowances.

The best thing that can be done with that €1,680 pa might in fact be to put in a long-term savings account to pay for some form of third level education, which I know a lot of parents do already.

Obliq

OldNotWIse wrote: »

"Certain" families? Isn't it paid for all children?

Also, on what basis do you say that it will not be re-spent on children?

Simply put, take away the 140 a month from the family and give it directly to the child through free school books, meals, clothing, childcare etc and there will be plenty of children who now see no benefit, who will suddenly see a benefit. Like I said, if you are already spending it on your child and the government then puts mechanisms in place to spend it on your child instead, why would you have a problem??

It is a monthly income that I (as the head of my family) depend on to pay bills (to keep my children warm, etc., and sometimes even to keep them fed). This is a hand-to-mouth situation for a lot of people. If "mechanisms" were in place where the government will feed my kids in school every day and buy them 3 pairs of shoes a year, then yes, I could physically put away €35 a week from my lone parents benefit, and save towards the lump-sum bills that come through the door every month.

Just because I don't directly and immediately spend the CB on children's clothes, books, health, etc. every month, does not mean it's being misspent, just that it's the only regular lump sum available.

Tim Robbins

Gbear wrote: »

That's hilarious. Ireland has it completely slanted to the tenants. We have a ludicrous number of rights. You should try France if you think we're bad.

And you try Germany or Sweden.

Tenants are treated like cr*p here. A lot better than they were 20 years ago.

No. My parents couldn't read the market. People who could read the market bought at the start of the boom, sold at the height and made a huge profit. My parents just realised it was a dangerous game to even be trying to play.

But don't dismiss people who bought in the boom as playing a game.
Anyway, I think you are going off the point.

If the boom / crash never happened - it is really irrelevant. Families deserve to have some rebate to help raise children for the simple fact that children are not capable of looking after themselves.

I think a better way of doing this would be tax credits.
Another way would be to increase taxes for childless people - which is the exact same thing. But offensive to childless people.

You see, I think this is where the problem is. Because it is called benefit, there is a misconception that people make money out of this or get something as a bonus. This misunderstanding usually comes from the childless.

OldNotWIse

Dades wrote: »

Yes it is - I didn't realise you were advocating removing it from everyone.

Mainly, I don't trust the government to do anything of the sort.

There are a lot of people relying on it for food, heating, clothes, etc. Taking benefit from some families will put them on the streets. Also, a lot of the stuff you mentioned spending the money on is already free or covered in some cases by other allowances.

The best thing that can be done with that €1,680 pa might in fact be to put in a long-term savings account to pay for some form of third level education, which I know a lot of parents do already.

I'm not advocating removing it from anyone never mind everyone.
I simply suggested that it be provided in a more direct manner. Unless you are not spending it on your child in the first place, why would you have an issue with this?

OldNotWIse

Obliq wrote: »

It is a monthly income that I (as the head of my family) depend on to pay bills (to keep my children warm, etc., and sometimes even to keep them fed). This is a hand-to-mouth situation for a lot of people. If "mechanisms" were in place where the government will feed my kids in school every day and buy them 3 pairs of shoes a year, then yes, I could physically put away €35 a week from my lone parents benefit, and save towards the lump-sum bills that come through the door every month.

Just because I don't directly and immediately spend the CB on children's clothes, books, health, etc. every month, does not mean it's being misspent, just that it's the only regular lump sum available.

So why is it such a big deal if the net result would be the same?

Rev Hellfire

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Unless you are not spending it on your child in the first place, why would you have an issue with this?

Couldn't agree more, too much of the money given out as welfare is unaccountable.

As has been stated before child benefit is for the child and by say using vouchers etc you can ensure (to a larger degree) that this income is spent on them and not down in the pub or servicing a car loan.