Child Benefit

Tim Robbins

Newaglish wrote: »

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?

I think it would make more sense to have a debate about child benefit and forget that boom / crash even happened.

There already is mortgage assistance and even more for people who bought between 2004 and 2008. Look, if you go back to the 80's house prices were much lower and interest rates were much higher. If you go back to the 70's the price of Oil rocketed.

There will always be something in the family budget that goes and probably something else that goes down. Right now a lot is rocketing and family benefits have already being slashed. You used to get 1K per year as a once off payment per child.

I am happy enough to defend some sort of family assistance for its own merits. And you should be able to stop using the excuse "tough if you bought in the boom" to knock it down.

I think it's a bit heartless but if you I see you as a heartless person and you don't I don't see much of an interesting debate. I am happy enough to forget the boom / crash thing happened and defend family assistance for its own worth.

robindch

lazygal wrote: »

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?

I'm not suggesting forcing elderly people -- or anybody else -- to work against their wishes. What I am suggesting is that there is a pool of talent out there which is not being used but which could, easily, be put to excellent use as needs and abilities dictate. This, btw, applies to anybody who's relatively or complete idle from time to time; folks on social welfare, for example, just as much as it applies to the elderly on state pensions.

FWIW, while my own parents aren't really up to looking after kids on a regular basis any more, my sister-in-law's mum, on the other hand, enjoys it enormously as it keeps her in regular touch with her own child and her grandkids, gives her something busy to do several times a week, gives her something to look forward to and prepare for, and generally, keeps everybody happy. Contrast this, btw, with our own Popette who hasn't looked after a child for years and who has lost, through long-term lack of interaction, whatever perishable child-minding skills she once had, leaving our family's under-tens, as well as everybody else, generally uncomfortable around her -- I think that's pretty sad.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

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.

But they could have been in a worse position if they did not buy. Either way it is a gamble. A gamble that they should have been forced to be involved in.

If you don't mind me saying, you seem to be trying to take the high ground probably because you never bought and consider yourself a winner. As I see no other reason why your view of this is so one - eyed. The thing is you should never have been a winner and they should never have been a loser. It was reckless government policy that created that risk , the volatility. Not something that was a fair game.

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.

Bull sh*t. If you lost big time, let's say the boom kept happening then it would be unfair to be treating you as a loser with patronising statements such as you had the choice to buy but chose not to.

Macro - Economics is possibly the most complicated thing to predict after the weather. No-one has ever had accurate models that can predict exactly when things will happen and to what degree. Not you, not I, not David McWilliams, not the ERSI. No-one. There are too many variables and no-one has enough data to make it a deterministic mathematical problem.

People who say they can predict it accurate, or they knew are bull sh*tting.

The policy should be such that, inflation for property is in line with inflation of everything else. In this country it was not. There was a government who was introducing policies so that it completely ran out of control for years. There were people who were voting for this government. There were doing everything possible to maximise risk.

They were ignoring the Bacon report and nobody seemed to care. It turned into a massive game of risk where there were winners and losers. That game should never have been created.

Rev Hellfire

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But they could have been in a worse position if they did not buy. Either way it is a gamble. A gamble that they should have been forced to be involved in.

Buying a house is always a gamble, you speculate that you'll be able to afford your repayments over the duration of your loan and that hopefully you'll recuperate your investment over time.

Either way I don't see why the state should sponsor people to have children, its your own responsibility to ensure you can afford them.

Tim Robbins

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Buying a house is always a gamble, you speculate that you'll be able to afford your repayments over the duration of your loan and that hopefully you'll recuperate your investment over time.

Mods: I suggest splitting this into two threads:

1. What are your opinions on family assistance, child benefit, tax credits for spouses?

2. What are your opinions who lost in the property boom / crash?

They are both valid questions in their own right.

Either way I don't see why the state should sponsor people to have children, its your own responsibility to ensure you can afford them.

Well then take that its logical conclusion and make parents pay for primary school education as well which I think is 12K per year.

Rev Hellfire

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well then take that its logical conclusion and make parents pay for primary school education as well which I think is 12K per year.

Why do you assume that they shouldn't if you don't mind me asking?
I can agree with everyone receiving a minimum level of education, but I don't see why it should be universally free. Those who can pay should and if they can afford a better education so be it.

Tim Robbins

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Why do you assume that they shouldn't if you don't mind me asking?
I can agree with everyone receiving a minimum level of education, but I don't see why it should be universally free. Those who can pay should and if they can afford a better education so be it.

Do you believe everything should be means tested and nothing should be universal then?

Rev Hellfire

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Do you believe everything should be means tested and nothing should be universal then?

I'm trying to think of things which shouldn't be and I can find very few which shouldn't be.

Tim Robbins

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm trying to think of things which shouldn't be and I can find very few which shouldn't be.

Well the second question is then is if you generally dismiss universality what things be means tested and what things should be based on the users usage?

The plastic bag tax is not means tested. Everyone pays best on usage. In some cases, that works brilliantly.

Bannasidhe

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm trying to think of things which shouldn't be and I can find very few which shouldn't be.

As a matter of interest would you advocate that those who did not have children who then grow up to become taxpayers should not be able to avail of the State Old Age Pension?

Technically, it could be argued that current taxpayers are paying for their parents and today's children will pay for their parent's so should no children now = no pension then?

OldNotWIse

robindch wrote: »

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.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.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.

Couldn't have said it better myself actually. If someone thought it was worth paying 300k for a house before, why do they suddenly start to think its not worth that? My parents were going to sell their house at one point for a fairly substantial amount (they bought cheap land and built it bit by bit so it actually didnt cost that much, rather than buying in some leafy, fancy postcode). Now they'd be lucky to get half that offer for it but they dont care because they have no intention of ever selling anyway - its all just a numbers game! If they are not going to sell, whats the problem?

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Mods: I suggest splitting this into two threads:

1. What are your opinions on family assistance, child benefit, tax credits for spouses?

2. What are your opinions who lost in the property boom / crash?

Perhaps the split should be between (1) should stretched middle class families who have a large mortgage get child benefit, and (2) should middle class families who don't have a large mortgage but are still stretched get child benefit.

It seems clear the former will get no sympathy, but I'm still interested what people think of the latter!

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I can agree with everyone receiving a minimum level of education, but I don't see why it should be universally free. Those who can pay should and if they can afford a better education so be it.

They do. It comes out of their paycheque every month. We are the ones paying for that universal education.

OldNotWIse

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As a matter of interest would you advocate that those who did not have children who then grow up to become taxpayers should not be able to avail of the State Old Age Pension?

Technically, it could be argued that current taxpayers are paying for their parents and today's children will pay for their parent's so should no children now = no pension then?

Current childless taxpayers are also paying for other people's kids so the only way you could justifiably cut such people off from a pension is by giving them some kind of benefit that sets off the payments they make to the children of other people at present.

Rev Hellfire

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Technically, it could be argued that current taxpayers are paying for their parents and today's children will pay for their parent's so should no children now = no pension then?

It could be equally argued that those paying today are paying for their own future pension.

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

They do. It comes out of their paycheque every month. We are the ones paying for that universal education.

And perhaps it would be more equatable to reduce the burden of payment for those without children by ensuring education is means tested.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Bull sh*t. If you lost big time, let's say the boom kept happening then it would be unfair to be treating you as a loser with patronising statements such as you had the choice to buy but chose not to.

As luck would have it, yes, I did lose big time as my flat went onto the market in late 2006, just a few weeks before the banks went bust. It stayed there for two years, unsold, and that's cost me something like 70% of the value of it in comparison to the boom-era price; had I tried to sell earlier in the year, I'd have made out like a bandit. But so what? I'm not whining - that's the way the economic cookie crumbles. I wish eternal misery upon the regulators and the government of the day who let the property boom happen and who handled the collapse so poorly, but I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for myself, nor do I expect the state to help me recover that loss in any way (the flip-side of people in negative equity).

So, no, there's nothing patronising about a statement like "you had the choice to buy but didn't", any more than the statement "I had the choice to sell but didn't". They're statements of fact and I believe it would help people come to terms with bad choices that they freely made, if people would accept them as such.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

People who say they can predict it accurate, or they knew are bull sh*tting.

I knew and knew it very well, which is why I put my flat on the market when I did -- intractable family reasons having prevented me putting it on six months earlier when I'd wanted to. If somebody didn't know that there was a boom happening, then they should review their financial competence.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It turned into a massive game of risk where there were winners and losers. That game should never have been created.

I think we can both agree on that

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

As luck would have it, yes, I did lose big time as my flat went onto the market in late 2006, just a few weeks before the banks went bust. It stayed there for two years, unsold, and that's cost me something like 70% of the value of it in comparison to the boom-era price; had I tried to sell earlier in the year, I'd have made out like a bandit. But so what? I'm not whining - that's the way the economic cookie crumbles. I wish eternal misery upon the regulators and the government of the day who let the property boom happen and who handled the collapse so poorly, but I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for myself, nor do I expect the state to help me recover that loss in any way (the flip-side of people in negative equity).

That's not really bad luck. Bad luck is not when you don't maximise profit it is when you loose big time? How much did you loose?

I don't feel sorry for myself either and I lost 200K. If I include the profit I could have made it would have been 400K.

Anyway, there's no difference between us there in terms of self sympathy. I never expected any tax payer to give me that money and I never expected debt forgiveness. I would argue the conditions should be there so I can have opportunities to work my way out of it.

So, no, there's nothing patronising about a statement like "you had the choice to buy but didn't", any more than the statement "I had the choice to sell but didn't".

There is if one is more involving of someone who has unfairly lost. You keep thinking the game was fair. It was n't fair. The game shouldn't even have existed in the first place.

They're statements of fact and I believe it would help people come to terms with bad choices that they freely made, if people would accept them as such.I knew and knew it very well, which is why I put my flat on the market when I did -- intractable family reasons having prevented me putting it on six months earlier when I'd wanted to.

Well maybe your empathy ratings are lower and your brain finds it harder to produce chemicals that produce a feeling of sympathy for people who are trying their best but were more unlucky than you. I feel sorry for a lot of people who got burnt - maybe influence because I know a lot and I see how it is affecting their families.

If somebody didn't know that there was a boom happening, then they should review their financial competence. I think we can both agree on that

As I said it's very difficult to make accurate predictions. This is even worse in this country because of the way it is run.

You seem to think it's easy. There is no evidence to support this.

Bannasidhe

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Current childless taxpayers are also paying for other people's kids so the only way you could justifiably cut such people off from a pension is by giving them some kind of benefit that sets off the payments they make to the children of other people at present.

On the understanding that those children will fund the State when we are no longer taxpayers.

OldNotWIse

robindch wrote: »

As luck would have it, yes, I did lose big time as my flat went onto the market in late 2006, just a few weeks before the banks went bust. It stayed there for two years, unsold, and that's cost me something like 70% of the value of it in comparison to the boom-era price; had I tried to sell earlier in the year, I'd have made out like a bandit. But so what? I'm not whining - that's the way the economic cookie crumbles. I wish eternal misery upon the regulators and the government of the day who let the property boom happen and who handled the collapse so poorly, but I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for myself, nor do I expect the state to help me recover that loss in any way (the flip-side of people in negative equity).

So, no, there's nothing patronising about a statement like "you had the choice to buy but didn't", any more than the statement "I had the choice to sell but didn't". They're statements of fact and I believe it would help people come to terms with bad choices that they freely made, if people would accept them as such.I knew and knew it very well, which is why I put my flat on the market when I did -- intractable family reasons having prevented me putting it on six months earlier when I'd wanted to. If somebody didn't know that there was a boom happening, then they should review their financial competence. I think we can both agree on that

Agree with you on this. The way its been handled leaves a lot to be desired. Two people having committed suicide lately over this same issue. 350 thousand families evicted. nobody deserves that either

OldNotWIse

Bannasidhe wrote: »

On the understanding that those children will fund the State when we are no longer taxpayers.

I love your optimism.

By the time we all get "there" the posts will be moved.

I'm convinced I'll be working til im ninety. Either that or die young.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's not really bad luck. Bad luck is not when you don't maximise profit it is when you loose big time? How much did you loose?

About twice what you did. Bummer.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well maybe your empathy ratings are lower and your brain finds it harder to produce chemicals that produce a feeling of sympathy for people who are trying their best but were more unlucky than you.

I'm sure there were a few people who were naive enough to buy at the top of the boom, who over-extended themselves, who trusted things and especially their jobs -- in good faith -- to keep on getting "better" and I certainly have sympathy for them.

But for the rest who over-extended themselves by buying something too expensive without due care, and who are still working at the same salary-level, well, I've no more sympathy for them then I do for somebody who bought themselves an overly-fancy car and then develops a major headache paying that off.

Personal responsibility for one's own financial well-being seems to have taken a back-seat in all of this and I'm not at all comfortable with that.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

And perhaps it would be more equatable to reduce the burden of payment for those without children by ensuring education is means tested.

There's a lot of talk of means testing but when I put it to people earlier in the thread nobody seemed willing to throw a figure out.

It's very difficult to come up with a number that flags a household as having "enough" to pay more (especially as the numbers inevitably include the already screwed middle class). Like with child benefit you have to avoid situation where people just say f*ck it, kids are too expensive. Someone still has to pay for our rapidly aging population.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

But for the rest who over-extended themselves by buying something too expensive without due care, and who are still working at the same salary-level, well, I've no more sympathy for them then I do for somebody who bought themselves an overly-fancy car and then develops a major headache paying that off.

Personal responsibility for one's own financial well-being seems to have taken a back-seat in all of this and I'm not at all comfortable with that.

The fancy car people I would agree with. I just don't know anyone like that.

And I think very few fall into that category. Most development - 90% - in fact were modest apartments bought by single people or childless couples.

I remember ringing Dublin City Council and having an argument with a planner in Dublin City Council about this in 2005 - that too much of their developement was not family friendly and they didn't give two hoots.

They told me they made their decisions on what will sell, not the percentage of families you have in a society.

So to cut a long story short, where someone else said I don't think people who drive SUVs should get child benefit and I said I just don't think there are that many people who fall into that category. I similarly think there are very few who bought a house to show off. Most development in Dublin was in unfashionable areas and was generally small apartments.

I'd hardly call someone buying something like that a show off.

But as I said earlier maybe I mix in different circles to some other posters here.

Rev Hellfire

Dades wrote: »

Like with child benefit you have to avoid situation where people just say f*ck it, kids are too expensive.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this statement. If kids are to expensive then perhaps you shouldn't be having them.

Dades wrote: »

Someone still has to pay for our rapidly aging population.

I've actually some sympathy here, many of the older generation did pay their taxes with the expectation that a pension would be provided.
Clearly that is no longer sustainable which is way people should be encouraged to create private pension funds.
Though it could be equally argued that planning for your own retirement is your responsibility and society as a whole should not be footing the bill for you.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this statement. If kids are to expensive then perhaps you shouldn't be having them.

I absolutely agree. I don't begrudge anyone a family, but people who have several kids with no means to support them rankles with me, enormously.

A lot of this is because my wife would have more children (we have 2). I am adamant against this, for amongst other reasons, it would cripple us financially looking forward to tax and interest rate hikes, as well as the reintroduction of third level fees. My *practicality* has inevitably causes strain in our house, while around us we see mothers with squadrons of children from several fathers.

It's from this angle I look at people calling for the removal of child benefit from some supposedly "well off" families.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I've actually some sympathy here, many of the older generation did pay their taxes with the expectation that a pension would be provided.
Clearly that is no longer sustainable which is way people should be encouraged to create private pension funds.
Though it could be equally argued that planning for your own retirement is your responsibility and society as a whole should not be footing the bill for you.

Private pensions should be encouraged, however the last few years has seen the government removing incentives rather than increasing them.

Obliq

Dades wrote: »

I absolutely agree. I don't begrudge anyone a family, but people who have several kids with no means to support them rankles with me, enormously.

A lot of this is because my wife would have more children (we have 2). I am adamant against this, for amongst other reasons, it would cripple us financially looking forward to tax and interest rate hikes, as well as the reintroduction of third level fees. My *practicality* has inevitably causes strain in our house, while around us we see mothers with squadrons of children from several fathers.

TBH, you do seem to begrudge certain people a family. You can't know what choices these "mothers with squadrons of children from several fathers" have made. In my case for example, both times I went about having children it was while working and in both cases the fathers were working. While I, and the fathers involved made mistakes, our children were not mistakes. As a (now separated and on lone parents benefit) mother of two, I object to your reasoning. Both times the relationship was long lasting enough and financially well enough off to consider a family. Are you expecting people to predict the future?

Being in the position I am, I feel badly enough that Irish taxpayers have to support me and mine. At least I own my own home (with no mortgage), so you are saved the added burden of housing me too. I do as much community work as I can, and I live within my very frugal means. At the moment, there is little chance of me elevating my position to that of taxpayer, so I guess I have to live with being castigated until I can. It sucks though. Makes me feel so worthwhile, although I'm doing my damnest here.

Ps. I'll know not to do it again, you'll be pleased to hear. I'm aware that nothing is set in stone at this stage of my life.

Newaglish

Dades wrote: »

There's a lot of talk of means testing but when I put it to people earlier in the thread nobody seemed willing to throw a figure out.

It's very difficult to come up with a number that flags a household as having "enough" to pay more (especially as the numbers inevitably include the already screwed middle class). Like with child benefit you have to avoid situation where people just say f*ck it, kids are too expensive. Someone still has to pay for our rapidly aging population.

Well it's pretty arbitrary to throw out a figure and I don't have the time right now to work it out, but seeing as Tim Robbins says we can ignore the boom/crash and how it affects people's disposable income - I'm going to say €60,000. I can't think of how a family on this income wouldn't be able to support a child.

joseph brand

Obliq wrote: »

TBH, you do seem to begrudge certain people a family. You can't know what choices these "mothers with squadrons of children from several fathers" have made. In my case for example, both times I went about having children it was while working and in both cases the fathers were working. While I, and the fathers involved made mistakes, our children were not mistakes. As a (now separated and on lone parents benefit) mother of two, I object to your reasoning. Both times the relationship was long lasting enough and financially well enough off to consider a family. Are you expecting people to predict the future?

Being in the position I am, I feel badly enough that Irish taxpayers have to support me and mine. At least I own my own home (with no mortgage), so you are saved the added burden of housing me too. I do as much community work as I can, and I live within my very frugal means. At the moment, there is little chance of me elevating my position to that of taxpayer, so I guess I have to live with being castigated until I can. It sucks though. Makes me feel so worthwhile, although I'm doing my damnest here.

Ps. I'll know not to do it again, you'll be pleased to hear. I'm aware that nothing is set in stone at this stage of my life.

Thanks for that candid post.

I have two kids, like yourself and Dades. My wife isn't keen on adding another to the litter for financial and mental health reasons. The two we have, drive her mad sometimes with the usual screams, bickering and tantrums. "Such is life."

My wife complains the odd time about single mothers with lots of kids and all the free stuff and free money. Like these women were living the high life.

Perhaps my wife and other like-minded women should switch places with these single mothers for a week. They'd soon change their tune, when facing a half dozen screaming kids, alone.

'Ma Swap!'

Obliq

joseph brand wrote: »

Perhaps my wife and other like-minded women should switch places with these single mothers for a week. They'd soon change their tune, when facing a half dozen screaming kids, alone.

'Ma Swap!'

Thank you too, that's thoughtful of you. As for "Ma Swap", I wouldn't wish one of mine on anyone! Adorable though he is, he has a "Severe Emotional and Behavioural Disorder", SEBD for short, which is probably actually Aspergers Syndrome (as yet undiagnosed), and a special needs assistant in school. After seven years of trying to remain sane (and failing) my ex-husband and myself separated, but at least now share the child-care.

This is why I can't get a job that doesn't fit with school hours. My youngest is not equipped to be a latch-key-kid.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

A lot of this is because my wife would have more children (we have 2). I am adamant against this, for amongst other reasons, it would cripple us financially looking forward to tax and interest rate hikes, as well as the reintroduction of third level fees. My *practicality* has inevitably causes strain in our house, while around us we see mothers with squadrons of children from several fathers.

Similar situation - we have 2. 3 would be too much of a stretch financially and it also irks me that some people pop kids out without really thinking about how they are going to provide for them. In many cases, they screw the system. Pretend they are on their own to get some support from HSE (which is about 20 times what child benefit is) and then live with the boyfriend.