Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Tax on Children's Allowance?

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Best username ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Best username ever


    ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

    You paid €3,000 in USC last year so you have an income of around €53,000?

    That's just bad financial management if you can't survive without children's allowance on that income.

    Never said I couldn't. I know plenty that can't live without it. By the way that income is a little higher and it's only one income coming into the household.


  • Options
    #153
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,303 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    stoneill wrote: »
    Explain it to me please

    You get taxed on income that the government gives you?
    Does that mean you get the full allowance and then you pay higher PAYE or they reduce the amount you get?

    would it not be simpler just to reduce the child allowance?

    Maybe an idea would be to cut out the CA for anyone on over 100 k a year and limit the payment to say the first 2 kids to stop the skangers breeding like rabbits.


  • Options
    #154
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,303 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    wexfordman wrote: »
    The second half of the equation! The disincentive to work by over taxing working people, by taxing those who contribute more, by making it unfeasible for someone to earn a reasonable wage without incur ring ridiculous expenses just to get to work.

    By removing individualisation and not forcing both couples out to work rather than allow them both contribute to running the household and child minding. By allowing couples decide to have one stay at home parent and treat them with a level of fairness.

    Noble sentiments but how are they going to be implemented?


  • Options
    #155
    wexfordman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 490 ✭✭wexfordman


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    Noble sentiments but how are they going to be implemented?


    Well, couple of positive things that can be done. The means testing is constantly raised in relation to lots of benefits, oap medical card, cb, third level grants, ub etc et. The thing is when ever asked tabkit it in isolation, the answer is its too complex, too costly etc, bit of you look at how means testing can be applied across many areas you can net it would become cost effective then.

    Income needs to be based on household income, not individual income. Only then can you be fair and balanced in applying measures such as taxing of cb, grants etc etc


    Individualisation. Scrap it, let families decide how they want to allocate their resources includethe tax they have to pay . Let families decide to keep one parent at home If they want, and help them afford it by allowing the sharing of income tax allowances etc.

    Make it more affordable for families to decide to keep a parent at home if they want, not force two couples out to work in a country with 400,000 unemployed. Let's reduce the number ber of Jobseekers by literally reducing the number of people that have to seek jobs.


    For couples that do both want to work, affordable childcare and shared allowances will help that also.

    Take a series look at middle Ireland and the amount they are contributing, come up with some real figures about the value of work and at what point it becomes less viable to do so.


  • Options
    #156
    wexfordman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 490 ✭✭wexfordman


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    Maybe an idea would be to cut out the CA for anyone on over 100 k a year and limit the payment to say the first 2 kids to stop the skangers breeding like rabbits.


    The figure is debatable, could be lower, could be higher, but before you even approach it, threshold should be based on household income not individual incomes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Ogham
    Registered Users Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Ogham


    Seems like taxation of child benefit is not the preferred option.
    Looks like a 2 tier system is favourite now.
    http://www.moneyguideireland.com/proposed-child-benefit-changes-will-involve-means-testing.html


  • Options
    #158
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    Maybe an idea would be to cut out the CA for anyone on over 100 k a year and limit the payment to say the first 2 kids to stop the skangers breeding like rabbits.

    So combined income of 99500, 50k for you, 49.5 for the wife. 2 kids and you get your 3100 per year. But boom, work a bit harder, maybe get that bonus, earn 500 euro more (of which 250 gets sucked in tax) and you lose the 3100 benefit. Congratulations, you just made a tax trap.

    It is moronic 'policies' like that one that encourage people to behave in ridiculous counter-intuitive ways and create poverty traps, where it makes no sense to work.

    The poster from poland makes about the most sense on here. He is financially savvy, and sees that it makes more sense for his wife NOT to work.... NOT to pay tax, NOT to employ a childminder, NOT to support the local economy and jobs, and instead become a recipient. Purely because there is no tax credit for childcare. Child benefit for working families is used for just that... Childcare. You cut it for people earning, and you are cutting the ability of those people to work and pay tax.

    That family on 100k is pumping far more tax into the system than the family on 0, and possibly even employing more people who pay yet more tax. Should they not be encouraged to continue to do so, instead of being encouraged to drop an earner because they got to this random ceiling?

    Our tax policies should be based first and foremost around encouraging employment. A huge chunk of our problems relate to our current unemployment rates.


  • Options
    #159
    wexfordman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 490 ✭✭wexfordman


    Excellent post pwurple


  • Options
    #160
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    This is going to be a huge problem. There is already a shortage of cash going into the economy because of the bludgeoing of the working people. So you have people preferring not to work because it's too expensive. Plus the cuts in CB, [just wait for the child maintenance tax- I bet it will come- watch],the property tax, the poop tax, raises on motor tax, water charges, as well as people holding onto money because they are saving to emigrate.

    There will be less than no money pushed back into the economy.


  • Options
    #161
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    pwurple wrote: »
    ......................Child benefit for working families is used for just that... Childcare. You cut it for people earning, and you are cutting the ability of those people to work and pay tax. .......................

    Childrens allowance should be cut. With the money saved childcare for working people should be heavily subsided. The reason why creches etc are so dear should also be looked at.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    stoneill
    Registered Users Posts: 3,610 ✭✭✭stoneill


    Boombastic wrote: »
    Childrens allowance should be cut. With the money saved childcare for working people should be heavily subsided. The reason why creches etc are so dear should also be looked at.

    The other side of that is why should working parents get a benefit and stay at home parents do not.


  • Options
    #163
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    stoneill wrote: »
    The other side of that is why should working parents get a benefit and stay at home parents do not.

    Because parents who stay at home get the benefit of spending time with their children- and that's priceless.


  • Options
    #164
    stoneill
    Registered Users Posts: 3,610 ✭✭✭stoneill


    Boombastic wrote: »
    Because parents who stay at home get the benefit of spending time with their children- and that's priceless.

    It's also a moneyless suggestion- stay at home parents still need to clothe and feed and send their kids to school etc.

    The decision to go back to work or stay at home should not influence whether kids get CB or not, that is distinctly unfair.


  • Options
    #165
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    stoneill wrote: »
    It's also a moneyless suggestion- stay at home parents still need to clothe and feed and send their kids to school etc.

    The decision to go back to work or stay at home should not influence whether kids get CB or not, that is distinctly unfair.

    Nobody would be receiving CB, so that decision is not one which has to be made


  • Options
    #166
    stoneill
    Registered Users Posts: 3,610 ✭✭✭stoneill


    Boombastic wrote: »
    Nobody would be receiving CB, so that decision is not one which has to be made

    Then there should not be subsidised child care - either benefits are for all or for none, that's all I'm saying.


  • Options
    #167
    Boombastic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,496 ✭✭✭Boombastic


    stoneill wrote: »
    Then there should not be subsidised child care - either benefits are for all or for none, that's all I'm saying.

    Why? Benefits should be for people who have contributed to society.

    If you are working you benefit
    If one half is working and the other stays at home to mind the children, they could avail of half time
    If neither parent is working, they receive nothing - both are at home and childcare is not an issue


  • Options
    #168
    stoneill
    Registered Users Posts: 3,610 ✭✭✭stoneill


    Boombastic wrote: »
    Why? Benefits should be for people who have contributed to society.

    If you are working you benefit
    If one half is working and the other stays at home to mind the children, they could avail of half time
    If neither parent is working, they receive nothing - both are at home and childcare is not an issue

    I strongly disagree and absolutely resent that sentiment that a stay at home parent does not contribute to society.
    Society is more than just paying taxes, society is making sure the next generation uphold values and ethics, society is ensuring that you help your neighbour, society is maintaining a peaceful and safe environment for all, society is being a good neighbour, society is making sure that schools can function properly, that people can enjoy amenities, can go about their business.

    Family with one parent working contribute more tax in relative terms than two working parents.

    Childcare not an issue? Child care is the whole issue!
    People who choose to go back to work made that choice, people who choose to stay at home made that choice. That does not make then second class citizens. In fact it probably makes them better citizens as they lose financially in order to raise their kids and not like working parents who farm their kids off to strangers to do the upbringing.

    If you choose to go to work, you should pay for having children minded.
    If you don't want to pay, then stay at home.


  • Options
    #169
    shedweller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,029 ✭✭✭shedweller


    hoodwinked wrote: »
    there is a family local to us with 7 children, in a 5 bedroom council house and they get everything under the sun from either the hse or welfare,

    they have iphones/ipads/flat screen 40inch hd tv's (yes plural), their childrens clothes are paid for by the hse, they get grants for everything...

    they get at least €1,000 in child benefit a month, and are home all week so no childcare costs.

    My wife does home visits to people like that and she comes home in tears afterwards. They are "shocked" to hear that we only go on one holiday a year and it's not abroad. "Shocked" that santa brings one present to each of our children.
    The lazy good for nothing bastards are a COMPLETE drain on our country. Benefits for these "people" needs to be severely curtailed.
    Tin Foil Hat wrote: »
    Pricing the middle class out of parenthood in order to pay the working class to have as many kids as they want is a really, really bad idea.
    And it has gone on for a long time. Could somebody please explain why this is so?
    Wanderer2010 wrote: »
    Ya, there is at the moment absolutely NO incentive for the leeches who have been on benefits for years to change their ways and get a job. Now they have the recession as a great excuse- "Sure there are no jobs anyway", and have even more kids and a raft of benefits like reduced rent, a car allowance, child benefit etc etc. I know of a family with 6 kids who live in a lovely 4 bedroom house, big car, 2 holidays a year, low rent, best of clothes etc and the father is a pure scumbag who never worked a day in his life.

    Then the kids have to look up to this creature as their role model, and the cycle continues with the kids having the same entitlement mentality, never working, breeding, just basically existing until they die, a real drain on the state.
    Amen to that! They are laughing at PAYE workers.
    wexfordman wrote: »
    Having kids should, never be something one can't do because of financial restraint. Only the wealthy should have kids is what you are alluding to.


    The thing is, that rather than look at single allowances, the state needs to as art looking at overall family or household income to actually get a real idea of how much the state is supporting families.

    I know of families who are getting huge levels of state support and splash money out on ipads, computers I phones etc for kids at Christmas, and who spend the most for communions etc.

    We are a single income family, it I am on a good wage. We manage to get by and try to save money bit, not sure very successfully. We can't afford to be buying the kids ipads and I phones etc, and will be having a very frugal communion for our son this year.

    Thing is when cb is considered our family will be hit saying we don't need it, but then likes of the family above I mentioned won't be touched
    Again, this has gone on for a long time. It is common to all political parties so there has to be a common reason for it. What is it?
    hoodwinked wrote: »
    tax payers that won't exist if they keep upping taxes and lowering benefits paid to them,
    when welfare > working at €30,000pa you have a huge problem in your state,
    something has to give, either they ease up on taxing incomes, or they cut welfare in half.
    otherwise you create ireland today where a welfare family has a higher standard of living then a working family.
    In a huge amount of cases this is exactly what is happening already.
    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    No I never said that people should be on a €100 a week job, workers should be paid for what they do.

    Some posters seem to think that it's ok when things get tough to opt for welfare, I don't share this view.

    I never denied families have high childcare costs but that isn't the taxpayers problem.
    Long term dole recipients are opting for welfare etc. etc. etc. Whats your opinion on that?
    Galwayguy35 wrote: »
    Maybe an idea would be to cut out the CA for anyone on over 100 k a year and limit the payment to say the first 2 kids to stop the skangers breeding like rabbits.
    Now you are starting to make sense. Only a combined 100k salary is tight when you consider childcare, mortgage, food, fuel, poop tax, water tax, motor tax, nonsense tax, dole heads plasma tv tax, you get the point i'm sure.
    I am currently spending ALL my money. Cutting CB will only leave less to spend elsewhere. Part of this spending on goods and services is tax.

    Do you see what i'm trying to say here? They are not going to get any more money off us because WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE TO GIVE!!!

    So they can go and cut CB all they want. They won't benefit from it.
    And Marcin_diy, i agree completely with your suggestion of state run child care. It works in many other countries (Sweden is one where it works very well). I think the rationale behind it is that the state benefits more if you are back at work so they provide cheap (but good) childcare to let you back to work to earn money, part of which is tax. And the Swedes are doing very well, if i say so myself!


  • Options
    #170
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    I don't know how people know these kinds of people. I know families of seven who are genuinely struggling. They have big familes because they are following the main religion of this country, do a lot of prayer and catechism.

    One night I was at their home and they had peanut butter and crackers for dinner.

    Their house is always cold.

    Hardly sounds like the mythical land of luxury you guys are talking about.


  • Options
    #171
    shedweller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,029 ✭✭✭shedweller


    ^^^^^^^
    That happens too. Were any of those parents working? Because if they are, then they are struggling. If they are not, then they have an array of benefits available to them. So much so that they would have to be earning a lot of money in a job to be better off.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    I don't know how people know these kinds of people. I know families of seven who are genuinely struggling. They have big familes because they are following the main religion of this country, do a lot of prayer and catechism.

    One night I was at their home and they had peanut butter and crackers for dinner.

    Their house is always cold.

    Hardly sounds like the mythical land of luxury you guys are talking about.
    The unworking classes (those who never worked and have no intention of working) do not have larger families due to their adherence to Catholicism but rather because we have a welfare system which rewards idle breeders at the expense of those who actually contribute to society. Is there nothing we wont blame the church for?
    We need to undo this mindset of the unworking classes by removing a life on benefits as a comfortable lifestyle choice.


  • Options
    #173
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    The unworking classes (those who never worked and have no intention of working) do not have larger families due to their adherence to Catholicism but rather because we have a welfare system which rewards idle breeders at the expense of those who actually contribute to society. Is there nothing we wont blame the church for?
    We need to undo this mindset of the unworking classes by removing a life on benefits as a comfortable lifestyle choice.

    I see it more as less of rewarding idle workers and more of a punitive tax system for those who do work, especially in this climate.

    Maybe be off topic but its related, internship scheme is not helping matters. Dublin might be different, but in rural areas everything is an internship, saw one for dental assistant and another one for an assistant funeral director. Another one for stocking shelves at supervalue. Ridiculous. I don't know how you expect them to get jobs were there aren't any.

    Childcare is a fortune but I dont think it should be subsedized. Subsidies tend to inflate prices even more. Im not sure what the solution to this is though. But there has to be one.

    Honestly I think CB should be cut altogether and the money put straight into schools elementary and secondary. Scrap the uniform and provide books. Stop the voluntary contribution. And seriously improve infrastructure and programming for primary and secondary.


  • Options
    #174
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    Big family? Costs high? Tough shít, you made your choices and I shouldn't have have to pay for them. I have no kids and I don't want any, so why should I have to subsidise those who do have kids?


  • Options
    #175
    shedweller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,029 ✭✭✭shedweller


    Corvus Maximus wrote: »
    Big family? Costs high? Tough shít, you made your choices and I shouldn't have have to pay for them. I have no kids and I don't want any, so why should I have to subsidise those who do have kids?
    You are including the long term dole recipients or unworking class arent you?


  • Options
    #176
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Corvus Maximus wrote: »
    Big family? Costs high? Tough shít, you made your choices and I shouldn't have have to pay for them. I have no kids and I don't want any, so why should I have to subsidise those who do have kids?
    because society needs children


  • Options
    #177
    shedweller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,029 ✭✭✭shedweller


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    because society needs children
    Apparently we need less. I suppose there arent jobs for them anyway.


  • Options
    #178
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    shedweller wrote: »
    Apparently we need less. I suppose there arent jobs for them anyway.

    Actually we need more to avoid a pensions meltdown.


  • Options
    #179
    Rabidlamb
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,202 ✭✭✭Rabidlamb


    Ogham wrote: »
    Seems like taxation of child benefit is not the preferred option.
    Looks like a 2 tier system is favourite now.
    http://www.moneyguideireland.com/proposed-child-benefit-changes-will-involve-means-testing.html

    Put down the burning torches for a second

    I've done sums here for a family earning 50k with 3 kids.

    So, you'll get €25 a week per child.
    There is a 2nd tier payment of €38 a week max per child.
    For every penny a family earn over €25k then 20% of the difference is taken off the 2nd tier payment.
    So if you earn €50k a year you get (38x52)x3 - (25000/5) = 5928-5000 = €928 a year = €17.80 per week 2nd tier payment

    So CA for them becomes (3x25)+17.8 = 92.8 a week which is €402.13 a month.
    In 2011 it was €140 per child (I think, forget the extra for 3rd) so that's €420 a month.
    So a family on €50k a year will only be down €20 a month based on 2011 figures, they'd be up a tenner based on 2012 allowances

    Someone on welfare then gets 25+38 = 63 x 52 / 12 = €273 a month per child but their FIS is abolished.


  • Options
    #180
    Ogham
    Registered Users Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Ogham


    Rabidlamb wrote: »

    Someone on welfare then gets 25+38 = 63 x 52 / 12 = €273 a month per child but their FIS is abolished.

    They wouldn't be getting FIS anyway - it's only for working people with children.

    The worse to be hit will be those on FIS - one example in that article shows an example where someone would be down by over €1300 a year.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    hoodwinked
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭hoodwinked


    Corvus Maximus wrote: »
    Big family? Costs high? Tough shít, you made your choices and I shouldn't have have to pay for them. I have no kids and I don't want any, so why should I have to subsidise those who do have kids?

    because when you hit old age with no children to look after you the state will have to, be it financial/nurses/doctors/carers whatever you will need,


    the state will be making money off of the taxes of the children currently born, including those children who will go into medicine/nursing..etc


    you are welcome...;) :P


Advertisement