Why have children got the brunt of the cuts?

Sue williams

It seems to me that children, especially those from poorer families have got the brunt of the cutbacks. Child benefit has been cut budget after budget and is now back to 2003 levels and back to school clothing allowance has been cutback to 2002 levels. I know that cuts have to be made but oaps maintaine their boom time weekly rates from january 2009. Joan burton had the cheek to say that parents can "shop around" for school uniforms, it must be a long time since she had to buy a school uniform for a child. Almost all schools these days require crested jumpers and pe uniforms that only one shop stocks.

repsol

Sue williams wrote: »

It seems to me that children, especially those from poorer families have got the brunt of the cutbacks. Child benefit has been cut budget after budget and is now back to 2003 levels and back to school clothing allowance has been cutback to 2002 levels. I know that cuts have to be made but oaps maintaine their boom time weekly rates from january 2009. Joan burton had the cheek to say that parents can "shop around" for school uniforms, it must be a long time since she had to buy a school uniform for a child. Almost all schools these days require crested jumpers and pe uniforms that only one shop stocks.

People get old,if they are lucky.It is not a matter of choice.People can however decide how many kids they want/can afford to have.I think it is unfair to indirectly suggest that the Govt target oap's.It is a bit tiresome listening to people on the radio and in the papers bleating on about not being able to look after their 6 or 7 kids because they are on social welfare and in social housing.I could not afford to look after that many kids properly and I have a very good income.I never even considered becoming a parent until I was a home owner and was financially sound.I think the Govt should cap childrens allowance at 4 kids.Any more is a lifestyle choice which those who choose to live that way should pay for themselves.I do agree with your point about the school uniforms though and wonder who is getting paid in schools to award such a valuable monopoly to particular shops.Ditto for the annual over priced school photos

murphaph

Children's allowance as a cash payment should be scrapped and replaced with things like school meals, uniforms, books etc. There are lots of adults who drink or smoke their children's allowance money and see it as an additional income stream.

You would benefit children more and discourage the "wrong" sort from propogating their sort by taking this step. We are going to seriously regret the decicions we've been making as a society over the past 20 years. We need to encourage familes of productive, able people that will be the taxpayers of the future, not simply encourage people to "breed" (for want of a better word) a future generation of people who do not aspire to anything.

Yes, there are some exceptions and some kids, despite the failings of their parents do have drive and make something of themselves, but these children are in the minority and cash payments to their parents being replaced by school services will not hinder them in any way.

Gee_G

murphaph wrote: »

Children's allowance as a cash payment should be scrapped and replaced with things like school meals, uniforms, books etc. There are lots of adults who drink or smoke their children's allowance money and see it as an additional income stream.

You would benefit children more and discourage the "wrong" sort from propogating their sort by taking this step. We are going to seriously regret the decicions we've been making as a society over the past 20 years. We need to encourage familes of productive, able people that will be the taxpayers of the future, not simply encourage people to "breed" (for want of a better word) a future generation of people who do not aspire to anything.

Yes, there are some exceptions and some kids, despite the failings of their parents do have drive and make something of themselves, but these children are in the minority and cash payments to their parents being replaced by school services will not hinder them in any way.

And what do parents do until the child starts school?for the first five years,just not receive any payment?

murphaph

Gee_G wrote: »

And what do parents do until the child starts school?for the first five years,just not receive any payment?

Subsidised, state organised (and insured) child care so people can work or seek work (in the case of the unemployed).

ahnowbrowncow

Sue williams wrote: »

It seems to me that children, especially those from poorer families have got the brunt of the cutbacks. Child benefit has been cut budget after budget and is now back to 2003 levels and back to school clothing allowance has been cutback to 2002 levels. I know that cuts have to be made but oaps maintaine their boom time weekly rates from january 2009. Joan burton had the cheek to say that parents can "shop around" for school uniforms, it must be a long time since she had to buy a school uniform for a child. Almost all schools these days require crested jumpers and pe uniforms that only one shop stocks.

Back to 2003 levels? Wasn't children's allowance only £32.50 in 1999.

Fianna fail in their bid to buy elections raised that to €166 and now our current government are left to deal with the backlash when they try to reduce this excessive payment.
Not sure what Mc Creevy was thinking when he decided that child benefit was to be increased for each of the third and subsequent children rather than reduced.

People have become spoiled with children's benefit and it's hard to take things back once people have gotten used to them.

juan.kerr

Because children can't vote?

I doubt many parents ring fence Childrens Allowance for spending on child related costs.

Its just another payment that happens to be driven by the number of children in a family.

tayto lover

The retired people have paid taxes all their working lives and lived through several recessions. Why target them now as they've done their bit?

They should be allowed to live out their last few years in peace without the worry of illness, heating their homes etc being put on them now.

Many of the elderly people I know are also helping their children and grandchildren in whatever way they can during this recession.

Gee_G

murphaph wrote: »

Subsidised, state organised (and insured) child care so people can work or seek work (in the case of the unemployed).

I do understand where you are coming from, I do know lots Of people that and smoke their child benefit, but there is people like me, who spend it on baby food,nappies etc at the beginning of every month and without it I'd be very stuck. I am unemployed(not by choice) ,highly educated and keen to find work. But Until then, I need that payment every month. So I don't think it's as easy as cutting it for everybody.

I do however think it should be means tested. People bringing in 80k-100k of family income shouLd not be entitled to the same monthly payment as some struggling low income/unemployed families.

juan.kerr

I thought that new young unemployment claimants below a certain age had their social welfare entitlements cut in half.

Surely that trumps the changes to payouts for children?

ResearchWill

tayto lover wrote: »

The retired people have paid taxes all their working lives and lived through several recessions. Why target them now as they've done their bit?

They should be allowed to live out their last few years in peace without the worry of illness, heating their homes etc being put on them now.

Many of the elderly people I know are also helping their children and grandchildren in whatever way they can during this recession.

Not taking the thread of on a tangent but, why is it fair that a blind 64 year old has a blind pension of 188 a week while a perfectly healthy 66 year old has 238 a week. I think what the OP is saying why is there cuts in every other area if SW payments except old age pension.

tayto lover

ResearchWill wrote: »

Not taking the thread of on a tangent but, why is it fair that a blind 64 year old has a blind pension of 188 a week while a perfectly healthy 66 year old has 238 a week. I think what the OP is saying why is there cuts in every other area if SW payments except old age pension.

I don't know why but I would be against cutting the oap's. I was also against cutting the disability allowances. I am not an oap by the way. The people I would target are the very rich and the professional bed-warmers.

ResearchWill

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't know why but I would be against cutting the oap's. I was also against cutting the disability allowances. I am not an oap by the way. The people I would target are the very rich and the professional bed-warmers.

I agree that all must be targeted, but Social payments make up 50% of our tax take, unless we fairly increase tax or fairly cut social payments we are going to remain in trouble, while I think cuts are bad and would rather they did not happen, I think it's very unfair that the only social payment not touched is the OAP.

tayto lover

ResearchWill wrote: »

I agree that all must be targeted, but Social payments make up 50% of our tax take, unless we fairly increase tax or fairly cut social payments,while I think cuts are bad I think it's very unfair that the only social payment not touched is the OAP.

I think they are doing this in another way by targeting fuel allowance, electricity allowance, travel etc. I do not like to see children, elderly and sick being cut while the very rich are left alone. They should also demand some work from the serial unemployed i.e. community work like cleaning up parks, painting walls and removing graffiti. I would not give Children's Allowance to any family with an income of over say 75 k or thereabouts. The Black Economy is flourishing too. A friend told me he contacted a painter who quoted him nearly 2k for a bit of painting, 6 days work. The painter is on the dole. I would have reported him, he didn't.

ResearchWill

tayto lover wrote: »

I think they are doing this in another way by targeting fuel allowance, electricity allowance, travel etc. I do not like to see children, elderly and sick being cut while the very rich are left alone. They should also demand some work from the serial unemployed i.e. community work like cleaning up parks, painting walls and removing graffiti. I would not give Children's Allowance to any family with an income of over say 75 k or thereabouts. The Black Economy is flourishing too. A friend told me he contacted a painter who quoted him nearly 2k for a bit of painting, 6 days work. The painter is on the dole. I would have reported him, he didn't.

What ever about fraud, the top earning .5% of the population pay about 18% of the total income tax take. They paid 2billion at an average effective rate of 27.5%. So from an income of some 7.2 billion the wealthiest paid 2billion income tax even if we increased the average effective rate by 2.5% to 30% it would rais 160 million. There is only so far you can push the top payers. In fact if we made the top .5% pay every cent they earn in tax we would still be short 10 billion a year to balance the books. That's how ****ed we are because our total tax take is 40 billion and we spend 42 billion on education, health, social welfare and justice alone.

Einhard

Sue williams wrote: »

Joan burton had the cheek to say that parents can "shop around" for school uniforms, it must be a long time since she had to buy a school uniform for a child. Almost all schools these days require crested jumpers and pe uniforms that only one shop stocks.

Would it not be an idea then, for the parents of children in a articular school to band together, and demand changes from that school- more stockists, less expensive uniforms. Or do we always need the government to hold our hands and do things for us?

tayto lover

ResearchWill wrote: »

What ever about fraud, the top earning .5% of the population pay about 18% of the total income tax take. They paid 2billion at an average effective rate of 27.5%. So from an income of some 7.2 billion the wealthiest paid 2billion income tax even if we increased the average effective rate by 2.5% to 30% it would rais 160 million. There is only so far you can push the top payers. In fact if we made the top .5% pay every cent they earn in tax we would still be short 10 billion a year to balance the books. That's how ****ed we are because our total tax take is 40 billion and we spend 42 billion on education, health, social welfare and justice alone.

I think the HSE is the big problem. I believe they receive more than the other agencies put together. There should be a cull on administrators for a start.

How about a cut of 10% on Public Sector pensioners who are receiving over 50 k per annum. I don't know if they can do that though especially as they encouraged many of them to retire and may not want to break the agreements.

Gee_G

Einhard wrote: »

Would it not be an idea then, for the parents of children in a articular school to band together, and demand changes from that school- more stockists, less expensive uniforms. Or do we always need the government to hold our hands and do things for us?

People will do nothing of the sort! They will just give out about these things for years, about how disgraceful it is!

But yeah,I think something like just have a navy jumper, navy trousers, blue polo shirt and you can buy the school crest and sew it on. My mother used to do it! And obviously I'm not suggesting every school wear navy ha ha. But plain trousers and jumpers that can be bought anywhere(dunnes,heatons etc) for half the price!

ResearchWill

tayto lover wrote: »

I think the HSE is the big problem. I believe they receive more than the other agencies put together. There should be a cull on administrators for a start.

How about a cut of 10% on Public Sector pensioners who are receiving over 50 k per annum. I don't know if they can do that though especially as they encouraged many of them to retire and may not want to break the agreements.

Healt spending is approx 13 billion Social spending is 20 billion and education is 8 billion all approx. there is the problem most of our money is spent in the hardest areas to cut. Even if we accept that there is waste in the system and that waste is 10% the total savings for waste about 4 billion.

In relation to pensions I personally believe no public pension should exceed 50k a year and no one should receive a public pension until they turn 66. It may be difficult to make that retrospective there is nothing stopping it going into the future.

murphaph

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't know why but I would be against cutting the oap's. I was also against cutting the disability allowances. I am not an oap by the way. The people I would target are the very rich and the professional bed-warmers.

In the current cohort of pensioners there are also people who were professional bed warmers when they were capable of work. What to do with them then?

tayto lover

murphaph wrote: »

In the current cohort of pensioners there are also people who were professional bed warmers when they were capable of work. What to do with them then?

Nothing you can do about them now. You could prevent it happening again though.

duckie360

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't know why but I would be against cutting the oap's. I was also against cutting the disability allowances. I am not an oap by the way. The people I would target are the very rich and the professional bed-warmers.

The social welfare system has taken a huge incentive out of working and needs to be revisited. I am of course sympathetic for anyone in the last four years who has lost their jobs and is trying to get work, but there are people on the dole for five plus years who don't want to work and some who NEVER have but still feel entitled to their weekly windfall.
This more than anything else, I feel, needs to be prioritized immediately.

astrofool

tayto lover wrote: »

The retired people have paid taxes all their working lives and lived through several recessions. Why target them now as they've done their bit?

They also voted en masse for FF, and probably will again next election.

Icepick

tayto lover wrote: »

The retired people have paid taxes all their working lives

Many of them did not pay enough to warrant current levels of pensions and benefits. There were 97,179 recipients of non-Contributory pensions in 2010 for example.
State pension is a pyramid scheme, which is running out of "investors" very fast. Current pensioners needed to subsidize a substantially smaller amount of pensioners on a substantially smaller level of benefits. Just ten years ago, there were 130,000 fewer state pension recipients than now.

The elderly are the most financially secure and richest population segment. To be the most protected one is unfair albeit not surprising.

Boskowski

Well if you lose your job and have dependants you should receive support.
But why do people think they are entitled to CB? It's like with everything else in life, if you can afford it then have it if you can't well tough luck. Blanket cb payments are an insane policy IMO.

srsly78

Boskowski wrote: »

Blanket cb payments are an insane policy IMO.

Yes and no. Not insane at all if you want to boost the population and create future tax payers. It is insane however when all these tax payers draw the dole instead however.

Boskowski

srsly78 wrote: »

Yes and no. Not insane at all if you want to boost the population and create future tax payers. It is insane however when all these tax payers draw the dole instead however.

Or else receive an expensive college education and then bugger of to Australia.

It kind of baffles me why the Irish state policy is to incentivize population growth when there's clearly not enough jobs/infrastructure for the existing numbers.

Farmer Pudsey

Boskowski wrote: »

Well if you lose your job and have dependants you should receive support.
But why do people think they are entitled to CB? It's like with everything else in life, if you can afford it then have it if you can't well tough luck. Blanket cb payments are an insane policy IMO.

Because in Ireland we have failed to set up state pre school childcare for working parents. FF in there wisdom to keep things even rose CA and even the 1000 euro preschool lumpsum. We have a huge issue we have the highest welfare rates in Europe ( but loads are still vulnerable). We need to continue with discentives to work. The last budget took about 450 euro off family's on welfare but took about 1100 euro's of lowpaid working family's. History has taught that something never change. Joan Bruton plans to continue next year by taxing the benifit for working family's.

We never set up proper childcare during the boom and now during the recession we cannot afford it so we will not be able to set it up. We also have the issue that we are still a low population density country. Most other countries use there schools as part of the Childcare program. To do that teachers would have to start work at 8am take a 2 hour lunchbreak(during which they correct the homework) and finish at around 5pm. Cannot see that happening.

srsly78

Boskowski wrote: »

Or else receive an expensive college education and then bugger of to Australia.

It kind of baffles me why the Irish state policy is to incentivize population growth when there's clearly not enough jobs/infrastructure for the existing numbers.

Well, these things are cyclic. Hopefully by the time all the incentivised-infants mature we will be in a boom! Probably not, but just because we are in a bust now doesn't mean we should lose sight of long term planning. Aren't we still the only country with a lower population than 100+ years ago (rabble rabble potato famine etc)?

Oh, I abused the hell our of our free college system (btea etc) and then promptly ****ed off. Came back tho so at least I can complain about it.