Child Benifit idea - Could save Millions

Uepped

I have an idea about child benifit that could save millions, Remove the option of paying it into a bank account and make all recipints collect it at their local post office with their welfare card. That way people who arn't even living in the country couldn't reseive it and rich yummy mummys who don't need it would probably be too embarresed to que in the po to collect it.

Tabnabs

And all the parents who work for a living (longer hours than PO is open for!), pay taxes and don't scrounge off the state...?

ringadingding

We could use the savings to improve education.

jimgoose

It would be a vastly better idea to stop paying it to people who don't need it. It should be means-tested.

whupdedo

Uepped wrote: »

I have an idea about child benifit that could save millions, Remove the option of paying it into a bank account and make all recipints collect it at their local post office with their welfare card. That way people who arn't even living in the country couldn't reseive it and rich yummy mummys who don't need it would probably be too embarresed to que in the po to collect it.

Bad idea, back to the drawing board for you

Chattastrophe!

Surely the "rich yummy mummies" pay a lot more tax and are more deserving of it ...?

Valetta

Uepped wrote: »

I have an idea about child benifit that could save millions, Remove the option of paying it into a bank account and make all recipints collect it at their local post office with their welfare card. That way people who arn't even living in the country couldn't reseive it and rich yummy mummys who don't need it would probably be too embarresed to que in the po to collect it.

You do realise people not on welfare claim and receive child benefit?

Uepped

Valetta wrote: »

You do realise people not on welfare claim and receive child benefit?

I never said otherwise

100200 shih

Learn to spell

jimgoose

Uepped wrote: »

I never said otherwise

You rather strongly implied it. You can't show up at the post office with a social services card if you aren't in receipt of some sort of Social Protection payment. Children's Allowance is universal for everyone who has children.

whupdedo

jimgoose wrote: »

It would be a vastly better idea to stop paying it to people who don't need it. It should be means-tested.

So if someone who pays taxes and contributes to the system earns more than allowed, they would have the child support cut off for their children.

But, if someone who has never worked, is claiming the dole and is in receipt of social housing. rent allowance, free furniture bedding etc etc they should still get child support,

it doesn't seem very fair to me to pay the more unproductive members of society to have children, and all the while penalising the productive members for daring to have a good job and kids

Uepped

100200 shih wrote: »

Learn to spell

Grammer nazi reported

AnonoBoy

What's a welfare card?

Is that the card with my tax numbery yoke on it?

MarkR

Uepped wrote: »

I have an idea about child benifit that could save millions, Remove the option of paying it into a bank account and make all recipints collect it at their local post office with their welfare card. That way people who arn't even living in the country couldn't reseive it and rich yummy mummys who don't need it would probably be too embarresed to que in the po to collect it.

So a representative from every family in the country that receives child benefit. So, 600,000 extra would need to be using the post office. The queue would be visible from space.*


*May be an exaggeration.

jimgoose

whupdedo wrote: »

So if someone who pays taxes and contributes to the system earns more than allowed, they would have the child support cut off for their children.

But, if someone who has never worked, is claiming the dole and is in receipt of social housing. rent allowance, free furniture bedding etc etc they should still get child support,

it doesn't seem very fair to me to pay the more unproductive members of society to have children, and all the while penalising the productive members for daring to have a good job and kids

I quite agree, but we already do that. It seems more unfair again to me to pay a household that is firmly comfortable and affluent to have children.

ted1

Uepped wrote: »

I have an idea about child benifit that could save millions, Remove the option of paying it into a bank account and make all recipints collect it at their local post office with their welfare card. That way people who arn't even living in the country couldn't reseive it and rich yummy mummys who don't need it would probably be too embarresed to que in the po to collect it.

not everyone has a welfare card. people whoa re working don't have time to be going to post offices...

wp_rathead

Uepped wrote: »

Grammer nazi reported

Will. Not. Bite. At. Bait.
:pac:

jimgoose

jimgoose wrote: »

You rather strongly implied it. You can't show up at the post office with a social services card if you aren't in receipt of some sort of Social Protection payment. Children's Allowance is universal for everyone who has children.

Nope, plenty of people who aren't receiving any DSP payments have a welfare card.

If you're collecting children's allowance at the post office, you use a welfare card to collect it. It's a DSP payment. Who else would be giving out child benefit?

As for the topic on hand, that's the worst idea I've heard in a long time.

jimgoose

true-or-false wrote: »

Nope, plenty of people who aren't receiving any DSP payments have a welfare card...

Oh, is that so? I used to have one, and then they binned them for folk who weren't getting any payments like that.

ted1

jimgoose wrote: »

It would be a vastly better idea to stop paying it to people who don't need it. It should be means-tested.

I've heard of stories that proved that the costs involved with the means testing would be greater than the savings offered.

i also believe that if it was means tested that the middle class would be screwed over once again and would be the biggest losers.

jimgoose

ted1 wrote: »

I've heard of stories that proved that the costs involved with the means testing would be greater than the savings offered.

i also believe that if it was means tested that the middle class would be screwed over once again and would be the biggest losers.

Business as usual, so.

Penny Tration

wprathead wrote: »

Will. Not. Bite. At. Bait.
:pac:

Will. Not. Laugh. At. More. Bait.

Penny Tration

wprathead wrote: »

Will. Not. Bite. At. Bait.
:pac:

Ffs, now I look like a dope because you edited

looksee

It doesn't seem all that long ago that that is how children's allowance was given out, you had a book of vouchers as I recall, and you had to claim it at the post office. And people did without embarrassment But this took a lot of manpower and administration so they saved loadsa money by automating the system.

whupdedo

jimgoose wrote: »

I quite agree, but we already do that. It seems more unfair again to me to pay a household that is firmly comfortable and affluent to have children.

I don't buy that, were paying people who can't afford children to reproduce, people who can afford children will have them regardless, why pay for someone else's kids with the tax you contribute while all the while getting nothing in return if you do have kids and are able to afford them

jimgoose

whupdedo wrote: »

I don't buy that, were paying people who can't afford children to reproduce, people who can afford children will have them regardless, why pay for someone else's kids with the tax you contribute while all the while getting nothing in return if you do have kids and are able to afford them

You know, you're right. Do away with the stupid thing altogether. :cool:

looksee

looksee wrote: »

It doesn't seem all that long ago that that is how children's allowance was given out, you had a book of vouchers as I recall, and you had to claim it at the post office. And people did without embarrassment But this took a lot of manpower and administration so they saved loadsa money by automating the system.

Yup I remember queuing up in the post office during the summer as a kid with my mam while she waited with the book thingy. The que always seemed endless. Popping it into peoples bank accounts seems far more efficient.

The Princess Bride

jimgoose wrote: »

It would be a vastly better idea to stop paying it to people who don't need it. It should be means-tested.

It would be better to get rid of it altogether- don't have children if you can't afford them.Stop expecting the tax payer to fund your family.

Phase it in gradually.No benefit for newborns from January 2016.
That'd give folk enough time to sort out their contraception.

silly

Uepped wrote: »

I have an idea about child benifit that could save millions, Remove the option of paying it into a bank account and make all recipints collect it at their local post office with their welfare card. That way people who arn't even living in the country couldn't reseive it and rich yummy mummys who don't need it would probably be too embarresed to que in the po to collect it.

Stupid idea - where would I get the time to collect it when both myself and my husband work full time.....

SEPT 23 1989

Amazing with the technology we have to tax everything,the 100,000+ euro a year civil servants throw their hands up in defeat year after year when it comes to taxing child benefit of very high earners like themselves

whupdedo

jimgoose wrote: »

You know, you're right. Do away with the stupid thing altogether. :cool:

Or limit it to 3 kids, and if people want a 4th kid let them pay for it themselves, that way people will know they can't keep reproducing like animals and expect the state to cover it

AnonoBoy

Personally I think we should euthanise everyone once they hit 30.

It's not the childers that are ruining the country, it's us old people.

No more pensions to pay out, we could quadruple child benefit and we'd get loads of cash by selling off the organs.

galah

You do realise that most 'foreign' parents (that is, foreign born mothers) living here will get a letter every few months asking to confirm that they're still in the country, providing details of their kids school and/or GP?! If you don't send the letter back within a few weeks, the dept stops payment. I get this letter every three months or so, despite an Irish husband, a permanent job and a mortgage...

So govmnt is one step ahead, for once.

Uepped

silly wrote: »

Stupid idea - where would I get the time to collect it when both myself and my husband work full time.....

Lunchtime ? before or after work ? Saturday ?

ted1

The Princess Bride wrote: »

It would be better to get rid of it altogether- don't have children if you can't afford them.Stop expecting the tax payer to fund your family.

Phase it in gradually.No benefit for newborns from January 2016.
That'd give folk enough time to sort out their contraception.

these kids that you don't want people to have will be paying your pension. fewer kids = reduced pensions.

There is always a bigger picture.

Gannicus

Uepped wrote: »

I have an idea about child benifit that could save millions, Remove the option of paying it into a bank account and make all recipints collect it at their local post office with their welfare card. That way people who arn't even living in the country couldn't reseive it and rich yummy mummys who don't need it would probably be too embarresed to que in the po to collect it.

It might not be a bad idea to have those who are on the welfare do that. Even better would be to have a letter fro the school each year stating their child is enrolled in it and that they have attended the school a sufficient number of days to prove they are in fact in the country.

vitani

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Amazing with the technology we have to tax everything,the 100,000+ euro a year civil servants throw their hands up in defeat year after year when it comes to taxing child benefit of very high earners like themselves

I'm on a low salary but I don't begrudge high earners getting child benefit. They pay the majority of tax in the country and this is the only payment back that some of them get.

galah

Gannicus wrote: »

It might not be a bad idea to have those who are on the welfare do that. Even better would be to have a letter fro the school each year stating their child is enrolled in it and that they have attended the school a sufficient number of days to prove they are in fact in the country.

See my post above. They do that already, asking parents to confirm they're still here.

AnonoBoy

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Personally I think we should euthanise everyone once they hit 30.

It's not the childers that are ruining the country, it's us old people.

No more pensions to pay out, we could quadruple child benefit and we'd get loads of cash by selling off the organs.

Selective euthanizing maybe? Think of the long term savings! Child benefit is €130 per child a month I think? The dole is €188 per week. Euthanize those who've never worked or contributed to the exchequer, leaving the rest of the hard working population to continue populating the country until there's a time when people who've never worked or never have any intention of working have been made extinct.

Barely There

TBH I prefer the current situation.
The money gets paid every month into myself and my wife's joint account.

We both have good jobs and don't really need the CB payment, so I like to widthdraw it as €20 notes and use them to light cigars.

For Forks Sake

whupdedo wrote: »

So if someone who pays taxes and contributes to the system earns more than allowed, they would have the child support cut off for their children.

But, if someone who has never worked, is claiming the dole and is in receipt of social housing. rent allowance, free furniture bedding etc etc they should still get child support,

it doesn't seem very fair to me to pay the more unproductive members of society to have children, and all the while penalising the productive members for daring to have a good job and kids

They're not unproductive, they're 'de most vulnerable members of society' dontcha know :rolleyes:

Gannicus

Sitting here and the lad beside me in work said it should be capped at 2 children unless you're working.

I think that may be harsh and its a bit to close to eugenics for me but it would stop a lot of people having kids to receive more benefits

AnonoBoy

Uepped wrote: »

Lunchtime ? before or after work ? Saturday ?

I don't work near a post office. I go to work before the post office opens and finish after it closes.

So I should give up every Saturday to drive half an hour to the local post office to pick it up, yeah?

Great idea dude - you should run for election with that level of thinking!

van_beano

Centra will suffer due to everyone waiting at the Post Office!

Bepolite

Here's an idea. Stop paying it full-stop and don't push out sprogs you can't afford.

Reformed Character

Uepped wrote: »

I have an idea about child benifit that could save millions, Remove the option of paying it into a bank account and make all recipints collect it at their local post office with their welfare card. That way people who arn't even living in the country couldn't reseive it and rich yummy mummys who don't need it would probably be too embarresed to que in the po to collect it.

Where is your evidence it would save Millions?

The Princess Bride

ted1 wrote: »

these kids that you don't want people to have will be paying your pension. fewer kids = reduced pensions.

There is always a bigger picture.

Am quite sure that a lot of them- like their parents and grandparents before them- will never work or pay taxes, therefore, will not be paying my pension.

Bottom line- Have children if you want to have them, if you can afford to rear and educate them.But don't expect others to fund your family for you.

kippy

jimgoose wrote: »

It would be a vastly better idea to stop paying it to people who don't need it. It should be means-tested.

For the people who think it should be means tested.
How exactly should it be means tested?
What limits are you setting?

jester77

They shouldn't pay it out in cash, it would be better if the money was actually used for the children. Allocate the money to subsidise creches, school uniforms, school lunches, school books, school transport and so on. The rich don't need the cash and a lot of the poor use it for things that are not child related.

Ray Palmer

jimgoose wrote: »

It would be a vastly better idea to stop paying it to people who don't need it. It should be means-tested.

It is expensive to means test and administrate. There is also the fact if you means test it that makes people disadvantaged by working. Effectively you would be making those paying tax to fund it unable to receive it.

Not exactly a fair way to do things.

popolive

I have an even better idea to reduce child benefit payments. Why is there VAT on condoms ? They save lives too. They try to hit people with moral judgement by calling other taxes 'luxury taxes' then they go tax something rather necessary. Where are young teens and the unemployed (people in no financial position to have kids) who are subject to huge mind altering stresses from puberty (and are not under control of their parents or anything else) supposed to get money from for condoms ?