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: