Child Benefit

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.

Dades

OldNotWIse wrote: »

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?

I already gave my reasons for this. And Obliq echoed some of them.

It's not that the principle is wrong, it's that the government would have to micro-manage every single household's budget to apply the money in the manner most befitting each family. i.e. In the same way the head of the household does currently.

The reality is the people use the money for rent, heating, food, education, clothes, "the future". The state can't simply step in assume the role of the individuals.

OldNotWIse

Dades wrote: »

I already gave my reasons for this. And Obliq echoed some of them.

It's not that the principle is wrong, it's that the government would have to micro-manage every single household's budget to apply the money in the manner most befitting each family. i.e. In the same way the head of the household does currently.

The reality is the people use the money for rent, heating, food, education, clothes, "the future". The state can't simply step in assume the role of the individuals.

We're kind of going in circles here. I have already made the point that if the government provide direct benefits for the child then this constitutes a saving for the parents. Net result is the same.

As has been pointed out already, child benefit is for the child. And really, whats a minority of people who feel put out because the government is "making decisions" for them compared with making sure that all children get what they are entitled to. The state is not "stepping in to assume the roles of individuals" - it is stepping in to ensure that all children actually benefit from their child benefit.

Dades

OldNotWIse wrote: »

As has been pointed out already, child benefit is for the child. And really, whats a minority of people who feel put out because the government is "making decisions" for them compared with making sure that all children get what they are entitled to.

That's rather disingenuous. It's not about being put out with government intervention - it's about what you are suggesting being a completely unworkable option.

If someone can come up with a solid alternative, other than a mention of "vouchers", I'm all ears. Until then it's just pie in the sky.

OldNotWIse

Dades wrote: »

That's rather disingenuous. It's not about being put out with government intervention - it's about what you are suggesting being a completely unworkable option.

If someone can come up with a solid alternative, other than a mention of "vouchers", I'm all ears. Until then it's just pie in the sky.

I'm so tired of seeing the word "disingenuous" used (and indeed, misused) on boards... Did you not say, "The state can't simply step in assume the role of the individuals"?
ps I've already suggested one example: knocking money off childcare ie; paying it directly to the childcare facility. No mention of vouchers there.

Tim Robbins

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

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.

If two people are married and one works and the other says at home, the one who works gets a tax credit. Ok, so are you saying get rid of this and replace it with vouchers for the hairdresser / barber?

Hmm... I doubt it.

So are you saying we are capable of relationships with other adults but not capable of making decisions for our children?

Newaglish

To be fair, I don't think a system of tax benefits at source applied to any product or service would be practical because consumption baskets are different for all families. I also don't see what problem this would solve? The cost of raising a child is definitely more than 140 per month.

Rev Hellfire

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If two people are married and one works and the other says at home, the one who works gets a tax credit. Ok, so are you saying get rid of this and replace it with vouchers for the hairdresser / barber?

Hmm... I doubt it.

So are you saying we are capable of relationships with other adults but not capable of making decisions for our children?

I'm saying if the child benefit is supposedly for the child it should be restricted in a manner to ensure that is not commandeered for other expenditures.

Personally I'd like to see it abolished and tax allowances adjusted appropriately.

Dades

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'm so tired of seeing the word "disingenuous" used (and indeed, misused) on boards... Did you not say, "The state can't simply step in assume the role of the individuals"?
ps I've already suggested one example: knocking money off childcare ie; paying it directly to the childcare facility. No mention of vouchers there.

What you are implying I said was "The state shouldn't simply step in assume the role of the individuals".

I said "can't'" as it would be impossible logistically to do so given the difference in financial needs for every household. I've also stated I'm open to suggestions as to how the government could do this given this situation.

You mention childcare. Two problems with this: Firstly not everyone uses childcare, and secondly, if you start to suppliment childcare then the price of childcare inevitably creeps up. Rent Allowance has the same effect on rent prices.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Personally I'd like to see it abolished and tax allowances adjusted appropriately.

That would be fine by me, except it's not much use to those who don't pay tax.

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

That would be fine by me, except it's not much use to those who don't pay tax.

We can assume in such a case their welfare would be adjusted also (preferably downwards, but that's a different topic).