Child Benefit

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

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

Okay, so what would be the point of changing from a monthly payment to a tax credit working out the same per month?

Though I guess the admin spend would be less.

OldNotWIse

Dades wrote: »

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.

No, you are implying that I implied that I'm not interested in word gymnastics. I stand by my point.

Of course I haven't teased out all the logistics - what do you think I am? It was simply a suggestion and while most people (and indeed everyone on here) would claim to be spending their child benefit on their children, the sad fact is that a lot of people don't. If you don't see this then you are living in some kind of perfect, parallel universe. Wouldnt it be better to at least attempt to provide for these children too? At least when mammy and daddy drink/smoke/gamble away all their benefits, the child could still look forward to decent schoolbooks, afterschool activities, a hot meal in the middle of the day etc. Or are these children not as important as the ones fortunate enough to be born to responsible parents?

Childcare is just one example by the way. The examples I give are not some kind of absolute, exhaustive list.

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

Okay, so what would be the point of changing from a monthly payment to a tax credit working out the same per month?
Though I guess the admin spend would be less.

Well that way we can stop pretending its 'for the child' and say its really for the family expenses which is what it really is now.
Plus it can then be more easily banded to make it more equitable.

Tim Robbins

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

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.

That's pretty ridiculous for two reason:

1. As I said, the tax credit one spouse receives when the other spouse at home is not supposed to be for him or her exclusively either so why not come up with some sort of system to ensured it is shared also.

2. Child benefit contributes max about 10% of the cost of a child. That means, the parents are paying the other 90%.

Say the parents only spend 50% of the child benefit in total on the child, and kept the other 50% for sky sports, it would mean that they are probably starving the child to death.

Rev Hellfire

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's pretty ridiculous for two reason:

1. As I said, the tax credit one spouse receives when the other spouse at home is not supposed to be for him or her exclusively either so why not come up with some sort of system to ensured it is shared also.

2. Child benefit contributes max about 10% of the cost of a child. That means, the parents are paying the other 90%.

Say the parents only spend 50% of the child benefit in total on the child, and kept the other 50% for sky sports, it would mean that they are probably starving the child to death.

Which is why we should stop pretending its a benefit for the child and just call it a family allowance.

Rev Hellfire

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Child benefit contributes max about 10% of the cost of a child. That means, the parents are paying the other 90%.

I would argue they should be paying other 10% as well, certainly we shouldn't pull the rug out right now but rather set about reducing it with an aim of removing it in total.

Newaglish

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's pretty ridiculous for two reason:

1. As I said, the tax credit one spouse receives when the other spouse at home is not supposed to be for him or her exclusively either so why not come up with some sort of system to ensured it is shared also.

2. Child benefit contributes max about 10% of the cost of a child. That means, the parents are paying the other 90%.

Say the parents only spend 50% of the child benefit in total on the child, and kept the other 50% for sky sports, it would mean that they are probably starving the child to death.

Point 1 - The tax credit can be shared whatever way you like

Point 2 - A child costs 1400 per month? Breakdown please.

The bit at the end - I don't understand what you're getting at but it seems a little hysterical

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Well that way we can stop pretending its 'for the child' and say its really for the family expenses which is what it really is now.

I think the concept of the payment being "for the child" is a bit of a distraction from the reality.

Child Benefit is a recognition of the overall expense, with an emphasis on ensuring whatever children you have are provided for, in the hope that they will grow up to be taxpayers.

Tim Robbins

Newaglish wrote: »

Point 1 - The tax credit can be shared whatever way you like

Point 2 - A child costs 1400 per month? Breakdown please.

I gave the breakdown already already.

Creche / Childcare = 800 - 1,000.
Food, clothes, GP visits = 300 - 400.

The fact that this has to explained to you, shows you haven't put much thought into this.

The bit at the end - I don't understand what you're getting at but it seems a little hysterical

It's simple logic. Once you realise how expensive a child is.

Tim Robbins

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Which is why we should stop pretending its a benefit for the child and just call it a family allowance.

I think: "Very small contribution to child expenses" is the most accurate term to describe it.

Newaglish

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I gave the breakdown already already.

Creche / Childcare = 800 - 1,000.
Food, clothes, GP visits = 300 - 400.

The fact that this has to explained to you, shows you haven't put much thought into this.


It's simple logic. Once you realise how expensive a child is.

I still would regard childcare as optional and certainly not applicable to every family. Does anyone have stats on what percentage of families use childcare?

I had seen the figure before but 1400 per child is clearly case specific and not "the cost of raising a child".

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

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.

High mortgages and child care costs are fully controllable expenses -- the first, by not taking out a high mortgage on a property you can't afford, and the second either by using contraception, by one parent staying at home, corralling granny or granddad in to do child-minding etc, etc.

For people who are earning the same now as they were a few years back, well, I'm sure a few took out a high mortgage on a property in order to trade up some years later. Well, in all fairness, that's a financial gamble and one that, unfortunately, they lost. Tough. For the people who didn't buy as a gamble, well, they knew what the payments were. In both cases, people went in with their eyes open.

And speaking as a parent, it's not all that clear to me why the state should step in and pick up child-care costs. As the dad of a six-year old, I certainly appreciate that it does, but I don't see why other people should fund my child-care needs.

I also think that the state should encourage retired people to look after kids too in some fashion, perhaps in return for the old-age pension, or some increase to it, perhaps funded by the parents themselves. It would give the elderly the social interaction that some certainly need, it would cut down on child-care costs to parents at minimal cost to the state and so on.

Am not sure what this has to do with A+A, btw, but -- hey - whatever!

/ramble-over

Rev Hellfire

robindch wrote: »

Am not sure what this has to do with A+A, btw, but -- hey - whatever!

Clearly its the fault of the catholic church...

Turtwig

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Clearly its the fault of the catholic church...

It's.:pac:

Tim Robbins

Newaglish wrote: »

I still would regard childcare as optional and certainly not applicable to every family. Does anyone have stats on what percentage of families use childcare?

Absolutely. When a couple are married and only one works, the person who works can get an extra tax credit. The idea being that the person who is working is looking after the person is not working to some extent.

Now children come - they don't work either. So instead of a tax credit, you get a measly 1.5K per year. Now some people have an issue with that, but you don't ever hear them moaning that working spouse has received the non - worker's tax credit. Why isn't that means tested? How many of these childless married couples with only one person working are driving an SUV?

The media have created a caricature that there are a lot of parents who are so rich that they don't need child benefit. Does Michael O'Leary's wife work? If she doesn't work why is he entitled her tax credits?

Produce the evidence please tabloid media of how many parents really don't need that money. Because, I don't know any.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

High mortgages and child care costs are fully controllable expenses -- the first, by not taking out a high mortgage on a property you can't afford, and the second either by using contraception, by one parent staying at home, corralling granny or granddad in to do child-minding etc, etc.

You don't control interest rates. You don't control tax rates. You don't control the price of Oil. You don't control the price of food. You don't control the increase of health insurance. You don't control the return of college fees. You don't control the property tax. You don't control your wages cuts. You don't control the going rate for child care.

For people who are earning the same now as they were a few years back, well, I'm sure a few took out a high mortgage on a property in order to trade up some years later. Well, in all fairness, that's a financial gamble and one that, unfortunately, they lost. Tough. For the people who didn't buy as a gamble, well, they knew what the payments were. In both cases, people went in with their eyes open.

It's not fair to force people to even have to take that gamble.
You need to differentiate between people trying to buy a home (remember Maslow) and people who are speculating (trying to earn money without working).

And speaking as a parent, it's not all that clear to me why the state should step in and pick up child-care costs. As the dad of a six-year old, I certainly appreciate that it does, but I don't see why other people should fund my child-care needs.

I would not expect the state to fully fund child care either. As I believe it encourages both parents to work which means that there is less and less family time.

I would prefer a society where it was possible to run a middle of the road family on one income.

I also think that the state should encourage retired people to look after kids too in some fashion, perhaps in return for the old-age pension, or some increase to it, perhaps funded by the parents themselves. It would give the elderly the social interaction that some certainly need, it would cut down on child-care costs to parents at minimal cost to the state and so on.

Great idea.

Newaglish

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Absolutely. When a couple are married and only one works, the person who works can get an extra tax credit. The idea being that the person who is working is looking after the person is not working to some extent.

Now children come - they don't work either. So instead of a tax credit, you get a measly 1.5K per year. Now some people have an issue with that, but you don't ever hear them moaning that working spouse has received the non - worker's tax credit. Why isn't that means tested? How many of these childless married couples with only one person working are driving an SUV?

One of the main reasons why your spouse's unused tax credits are transferable is to facilitate having one working parent and one stay at home parent. I don't see how this supports your argument; in fact, it works against it; transferable tax credits make it even easier for one person to stay at home and save on high childcare costs.

The point about means testing of tax credits (which I have bolded); I'm really not sure if you're trying to build a logical argument or just throwing things out there to see what sticks. Tax credits are effectively means tested by definition. They reduce your overall tax liability up to a particular income, and then you start paying tax, first at a lower rate and then at a higher rate.

I would love to hear how you think means-tested tax credits would work.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

High mortgages and child care costs are fully controllable expenses -- the first, by not taking out a high mortgage on a property you can't afford, and the second either by using contraception, by one parent staying at home, corralling granny or granddad in to do child-minding etc, etc

My ass they are fully controllable expenses! I know longer pay a mortgage but my rent costs even more than my mortgage did.

Contraception? You mean don't have kids? Or one parent staying at home? I'm no economist but are both these options not a lot less beneficial to society than raising a new taxpayer and having two parents paying tax?

And let's face it - when its an option to have granny and granddad look after kids - that's great. But that's simply is not an option for most people. You can't magic deceased parents back from the netherworld nor convince living ones to give up retirement to do a job a 20-something would find arduous.

[Fight! Fight! ]

Tim Robbins

Newaglish wrote: »

One of the main reasons why your spouse's unused tax credits are transferable is to facilitate having one working parent and one stay at home parent.

It's not conditional on there being any kids.

I don't see how this supports your argument; in fact, it works against it; transferable tax credits make it even easier for one person to stay at home and save on high childcare costs.

Because good arguments are based on some sort of principle. If the principle is any good you can usually apply it to other situations to see if it really is.

When you notice contradictions, something is up.

Tax credits are effectively means tested by definition. They reduce your overall tax liability up to a particular income, and then you start paying tax, first at a lower rate and then at a higher rate.

I would love to hear how you think means-tested tax credits would work.

People moan because Michael O'Leary gets child benefit. But if his wife does not work he gets a tax credit which increases family income more than child benefit.

If someone is saying child benefit should be means tested because he is so rich he does not need it. Well then similarly he is so rich he does not need the tax credit he gets from his wife.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You don't control interest rates. You don't control tax rates. You don't control the price of Oil. You don't control the price of food. You don't control the increase of health insurance. You don't control the return of college fees. You don't control the property tax. You don't control your wages cuts. You don't control the going rate for child care.

Quite correct. So perhaps the people who are in financial trouble now shouldn't have bought themselves a mortgage with no safety margin.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's not fair to force people to even have to take that gamble.

"Force"? I'm not sure what you're talking about here. So far as I'm aware, nobody was forced to buy during the boom, and neither was anybody forced to make the assumption that house prices would increase steadily forever.

Obliq

OldNotWIse wrote: »

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

Don't ask me - I didn't say it was a big deal. I was really just responding to how the discussion seemed to be going down the usual "Oh but they don't spend it on the children" road. You can't really separate in family life exactly what is and what isn't for the kids. If the TV license needs paying, that's also for the kids. If the car needs tax, the car is also for the kids. Of course, I suppose I could swap one of these proposed shoe/school book vouchers for cash.....

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

Quite correct. So perhaps the people who are in financial trouble now shouldn't have bought themselves a mortgage with no safety margin.

Perhaps if they didn't do that, they would be in even worse finacial trouble.

"Force"? I'm not sure what you're talking about here. So far as I'm aware, nobody was forced to buy during the boom, and neither was anybody forced to make the assumption that house prices would increase steadily forever.

Of course they were forced. You were forced to make a risky decision.
Buy you could win or lose. Don't buy you could win or lose.

The property market was very volatile and there were going to be winner and losers. If you didn't buy in 1998 because prices were rising by 10% and then in 2004 when you were finding your rent to pay it would be ridiculous if people were saying - "tough you lost you didn't buy. You took a risk and you lost".

I don't agree with treating people who were simply looking for a family home the same as speculators. The risk should not be there.

Could you imagine if the price of milk was volatile and then you were saying tough you bought your milk on the wrong day this week. Stop moaning. House prices should be stable and just move with inflation.

Newaglish

Dades wrote: »

Contraception? You mean don't have kids? Or one parent staying at home? I'm no economist but are both these options not a lot less beneficial to society than raising a new taxpayer and having two parents paying tax?

I have immediate access to an economist and your argument make sense, but only to a limited extent. It applies to a very small subset of people.

The decision to work will be motivated by the net income the job provides. The net income is the post-tax income from the job less the costs of working. In this case, the costs of working would include the usual (transport, lunches, whatever) and also childcare. Whether or not you receive child benefit is completely irrelevant as the payment doesn't vary with your income.

If it did vary with your income, it would only impact on those people where their net income is less than the gross amount of child benefit per annum (with an allowance for rational behaviour and value placed on leisure time). This essentially is limited to people whose annual income is slightly more than the cost of childcare per annum, which would be people on pretty low wages to begin with - and I don't think anyone is suggesting minimum wage workers should have their child benefit reduced or eliminated.

Also as a much shorter point - having people leave the workforce isn't a problem when we have a) high unemployment and b) high labour mobility within the EU.

Newaglish

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Perhaps if they didn't do that, they would be in even worse finacial trouble.


Of course they were forced. You were forced to make a risky decision.
Buy you could win or lose. Don't buy you could win or lose.

The property market was very volatile and there were going to be winner and losers. If you didn't buy in 1998 because prices were rising by 10% and then in 2004 when you were finding your rent to pay it would be ridiculous if people were saying - "tough you lost you didn't buy. You took a risk and you lost".

I don't agree with treating people who were simply looking for a family home the same as speculators. The risk should not be there.

Could you imagine if the price of milk was volatile and then you were saying tough you bought your milk on the wrong day this week. Stop moaning. House prices should be stable and just move with inflation.

If people didn't buy houses, they would be in WORSE financial trouble? I think you'll need to explain this one with fun things like numbers and facts.

Saying that people would have "lost" by not buying in no way ties in to the issue at hand. Yes, not buying (and then selling!) in a rising market means you lose the opportunity benefit of the profit you could have made but that's just as valid as saying people were forced to buy gold five years ago which was also rising quickly. Which would be nonsense.

Buying a house is not the only way to provide shelter for your family. You can also rent, which is a much less risky option. You can change your accommodation if your circumstances change with about 30 days' notice. You can't do that with a mortgage.

For those people who did take out mortgages, why can they suddenly not afford them? People should always build a safety net into their budgets when applying for a mortgage and this should still be intact for most people if they did it properly; especially given that interest rates are still incredibly low.

Newaglish

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's not conditional on there being any kids.

What's your point? If there's no kids, you can go out and work. If there are kids, the drop in income by staying at home is softened by the transferability of tax credits.

Because good arguments are based on some sort of principle. If the principle is any good you can usually apply it to other situations to see if it really is.

When you notice contradictions, something is up.

Sorry, what?

People moan because Michael O'Leary gets child benefit. But if his wife does not work he gets a tax credit which increases family income more than child benefit.

If someone is saying child benefit should be means tested because he is so rich he does not need it. Well then similarly he is so rich he does not need the tax credit he gets from his wife.

Okaaay... so do you think he should be receiving both child benefit and the transferable SRCOP from his wife? Or one but not the other? And why? How would a system of losing your personal SRCOP work?

lazygal

I'm picking up on one point, namely that grandparents/other family members be roped into childcare. I've seen this happen in our extended family. I've seen a couple in their 70s try to cope with running around after an active toddler and young child and its exhausting for them. It's certainly not a great solution and good social interaction. In fact, this couple HAD a good social life until they were guilted into providing full time (and occasional overnight/weekend) childcare by one of their adult children. I've seen first hand how this can affect the physical health of an older couple and its not fair. There's a reason why nature designs things so people have children when they're younger.

I've seen far too many grandparents give into providing childcare for free or at a token rate, when they simply aren't able for it. The complex nature of families means sometimes people won't see what's in front of them, ie that their mum or dad, at 70+ years of age, isn't able for the demands and strains of child rearing. I would hate to think my parents felt they had to step into the breach and provide free childcare for my family because of some spurious claims that it would provide a nice social outlet.

It bugs me that its even suggested that people provide services like this for free. Imagine we started telling carers or nurses or doctors or indeed anyone who works that they should be grateful for the social outlet of working and sure you don't need proper pay and working conditions, aren't you having a great time?

Tim Robbins

Newaglish wrote: »

Okaaay... so do you think he should be receiving both child benefit and the transferable SRCOP from his wife? Or one but not the other? And why? How would a system of losing your personal SRCOP work?

I think people who are arguing against child benefit should be consistent. Or even come up with figures which suggest it is not needed.

All we are hearing, tough luck you bought in the boom and have kids. It's real me feiner stuff.

OldNotWIse

lolocaust can't believe this discussion actually went on into the night - lads have ye no homes in negative equity to go to?

I don't think anybody wants to punish those who mortgaged themselves to the hilt, it's just that really, it was a gamble and others should not be made to fill in the gaping hole that the bad decision has left.

Newaglish

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think people who are arguing against child benefit should be consistent. Or even come up with figures which suggest it is not needed.

All we are hearing, tough luck you bought in the boom and have kids. It's real me feiner stuff.

If the reason people are struggling is because of boom time mortgages, surely that's an argument for some sort of specific mortgage assistance? Instead of child benefit?

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

"Force"? I'm not sure what you're talking about here. So far as I'm aware, nobody was forced to buy during the boom, and neither was anybody forced to make the assumption that house prices would increase steadily forever.

Of course they were forced. You were forced to make a risky decision. Buy you could win or lose. Don't buy you could win or lose.

They had the option not to buy, and therefore, had the option to avoid putting themselves into a precarious financial position. This isn't hard to see.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't agree with treating people who were simply looking for a family home the same as speculators. The risk should not be there.

If they don't intend to move, then their houses are effectively not in negative equity, since they won't be selling. Can't see what the problem is then -- they're pretty much exactly where they thought they'd be, give or take the occasional new tax.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Could you imagine if the price of milk was volatile and then you were saying tough you bought your milk on the wrong day this week. Stop moaning. House prices should be stable and just move with inflation.

I'm not moaning since I'm not in negative equity or under mortgage pressure as I avoided buying places in 2004, 2005 and 2006 (since it would have wiped me out financially and in any case it was clear to me that the market was overheated). Everybody else had the option to avoid buying then too, but chose not to.