Increase child benefit to reflect on recovery

newparty

As Irish taxation system doesn't recognise children the only benefit families with children get is child benefit.
It was cut twice during recession.
Would it be a better idea to increase it by 20 Euro to where it was rather than reducing top rate of tax for rich lads?

BoJack Horseman

newparty wrote: »

As Irish taxation system doesn't recognise children the only benefit families with children get is child benefit.
It was cut twice during recession.
Would it be a better idea to increase it by 20 Euro to where it was rather than reducing top rate of tax for rich lads?

I would argue that it should stay as is, neither raised nor dropped.

Ireland, despite all the auction politics is still in a debt crisis.

Increasing the s/w budget when far greater priority exist would be a bad choice.

It would be popular though & that trumps all.

Riskymove

newparty wrote: »

Would it be a better idea to increase it by 20 Euro to where it was rather than reducing top rate of tax for rich lads?

so all the "rich lads" who happen to have children can get more money?

Valetta

newparty wrote: »

As Irish taxation system doesn't recognise children the only benefit families with children get is child benefit.
It was cut twice during recession.
Would it be a better idea to increase it by 20 Euro to where it was rather than reducing top rate of tax for rich lads?

Why should a taxation system recognise children?

They are recognised in many other, more relevant ways.

Child benefit should be taxed.

PS. I note there is no prefix "Budget 2015" available for threads. Perhaps the mods could have a look.
Budget 2014 was last year.

Idbatterim

As Irish taxation system doesn't recognise children the only benefit families with children get is child benefit.
It was cut twice during recession.
Would it be a better idea to increase it by 20 Euro to where it was rather than reducing top rate of tax for rich lads?

The rich on E32,800? just want to make sure we are on the same page? At that level of tax, you can earn 200,000 - 300,000 in other EU countries and actually pay less than the 52% here!!!

Geuze

newparty wrote: »

As Irish taxation system doesn't recognise children the only benefit families with children get is child benefit.
It was cut twice during recession.

It was cut three times.

From 160 to 130

FreudianSlippers

Why should one be financially rewarded for having children at all? People should only have children if they can afford them in the first place.

Valetta

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Why should one be financially rewarded for having children at all? People should only have children if they can afford them in the first place.

I would disagree with this to a certain extent.

Certainly there should be no direct financial reward for having children. However, for a society to continue functioning in to the future, it needs to regenerate.

Therefore there should be some form of recognition of the sacrifices people make when having children, which bring more benefits to society as a whole, and not just to those having the children.

This recognition is already there in the form of (mostly) free education, pre-school child care, various government funded incentives for early school leavers etc.

Obviously the levels of support given to families with children is a matter for debate in it's own right.

FreudianSlippers

Valetta wrote: »

I would disagree with this to a certain extent.

Certainly there should be no direct financial reward for having children. However, for a society to continue functioning in to the future, it needs to regenerate.

Therefore there should be some form of recognition of the sacrifices people make when having children, which bring more benefits to society as a whole, and not just to those having the children.

This recognition is already there in the form of (mostly) free education, pre-school child care, various government funded incentives for early school leavers etc.

Obviously the levels of support given to families with children is a matter for debate in it's own right.

I believe we had the highest birthrate in the EU at the last census. Are you suggesting nobody would have a child if it weren't for the child benefit?

Idbatterim

in fairness, the people we want to have kids are having less or not at all due to taking responsibility and financial worries, the ones we don't want having kids pump them out, safe in the knowledge, that the responsible classes will carry their own burden and that of others. How do you change a system and mentality that is rotten to the core?

Monife

Idbatterim wrote: »

in fairness, the people we want to have kids are having less or not at all due to taking responsibility and financial worries, the ones we don't want having kids pump them out, safe in the knowledge, that the responsible classes will carry their own burden and that of others. How do you change a system and mentality that is rotten to the core?

+1.

My husband and I are married 3 years and would like to start a family in the next 3 years however I don't see that happening until we have more savings under our belt, which is becoming increasingly harder with the ever increasing rents.

Child benefit should be means tested.

creedp

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Why should one be financially rewarded for having children at all? People should only have children if they can afford them in the first place.

Why should people be incentivised to have a pension in the first place .. people should just provide for their retirement and not expect the State to subsidise them. If you can't afford to retire .. then don't!!

FreudianSlippers

creedp wrote: »

Why should people be incentivised to have a pension in the first place .. people should just provide for their retirement and not expect the State to subsidise them. If you can't afford to retire .. then don't!!

I'm not sure that's a fair analogy. Having a child is a choice.

jeepers101

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Having a child is a choice.

Not always.

And quite often retirement is a choice.

Monife

jeepers101 wrote: »

Not always.

And quite often retirement is a choice.

Retirement isn't a choice, it is inevitable. Some people simply would not be able to work once they are of a certain age due to less energy, illness etc. And why should they, having worked all their lives (I am talking about the regular paye worker and not on social welfare for life).

Children are definitely a choice. There is such thing as contraception. For accidents, there is abortion and adoption.

BoJack Horseman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not sure that's a fair analogy. Having a child is a choice.

As well as a necessity.

Since the social security system changed to the ponzi scheme it is today, with the burden rolled onto the young instead of the payee, its critical that a nation ensure at least replacement level birthrates.

Irelands, though comparatively high, is only barely at replacement rate.

The "only have kids if you can afford it" line forgets who pays for elderly pensions/care/health costs.

Idbatterim

+1.

My husband and I are married 3 years and would like to start a family in the next 3 years however I don't see that happening until we have more savings under our belt, which is becoming increasingly harder with the ever increasing rents.

Child benefit should be means tested.

right and we dont give it to the ones who have no childcare costs and are paying no taxes? or are you implying, the ones going out and working, often paying 52% and struggling should have it curtailed? Giving another incentive not to work?

jeepers101

For accidents, there is abortion and adoption.

Debatable

I will reiterate my point. Retirement is quite often a choice. Sure, there are some that need to retire for whatever reason but there are many others working full time and claiming state pension.

Geuze

Idbatterim wrote: »

in fairness, the people we want to have kids are having less or not at all due to taking responsibility and financial worries, the ones we don't want having kids pump them out, safe in the knowledge, that the responsible classes will carry their own burden and that of others. How do you change a system and mentality that is rotten to the core?

Give tax credits for children, so that workers paying tax are encouraged to have children.

Rather than CB and Qualified Child Increases for those on long-term welfare??

Godge

newparty wrote: »

As Irish taxation system doesn't recognise children the only benefit families with children get is child benefit.
It was cut twice during recession.
Would it be a better idea to increase it by 20 Euro to where it was rather than reducing top rate of tax for rich lads?

If there is money for families, it should be spent on the following:

- child-care for those who are working or returning to the workforce
- schoolbooks for those who send their children to school in Ireland
- nutritious school meals for children in school
- subsidisation of cultural and sporting after-school activities
- scholarships for deprived areas for third-level education
- school uniforms


These measures will ensure that money to be spent on children gets spent on children. If necessary, cut child benefit further to pay for these measures.

Idbatterim

in yorkshire at the moment, just reading one of the papers, discussing the upcoming budget here, talk of changing the bands etc, similar to home, the threshold for the 40p rate is £41k ish, i.e. that is €52,000 according to XE currency converter, which I have just used.

a simple calculation on £100,000 in uk you are left with 65% of it, here it is 59%. The property tax should have been higher IMO and used to knock several % off the higher rate of income tax. Psychologically at the rates it is at, its doing more damage than good... That would have also gotten around the case of decreasing headline welfare rates again, but would have achieved the same thing...


Just listening Nick Clegg on the news, putting down Labours spend spend spend policy, sounds familiar!

Rightwing

Idbatterim wrote: »

in yorkshire at the moment, just reading one of the papers, discussing the upcoming budget here, talk of changing the bands etc, similar to home, the threshold for the 40p rate is £41k ish, i.e. that is €52,000 according to XE currency converter, which I have just used.

a simple calculation on £100,000 in uk you are left with 65% of it, here it is 59%. The property tax should have been higher IMO and used to knock several % off the higher rate of income tax. Psychologically at the rates it is at, its doing more damage than good... That would have also gotten around the case of decreasing headline welfare rates again, but would have achieved the same thing...


Just listening Nick Clegg on the news, putting down Labours spend spend spend policy, sounds familiar!

He is right, but unfortunately the spend policy is popular and the reason the Western world is effectively bankrupt.

noodler

The two tier Child Benefit payment system suggested by the Expert Group (2012) should be introduced.

It would maintain the universality the Irish people are so fond of for the first payment and only grant the second payment to household incomes below a certain threshold.

It would save a fortune and ensure scare resources are targets where needed most.

se conman

Having a child is a choice.
You either choose to have a child
Or
You choose to ignore the risk of having a child.
If you are retiring, that means you have worked, which means you have paid tax to pay for your OP
The argument that people MUST reproduce in order to provide tax payers for the future is nullified unless all these kids are going to work and pay taxes and not ending up as a drain on the economy of the future.

Packrat

se conman wrote: »

Having a child is a choice.
You either choose to have a child
Or
You choose to ignore the risk of having a child.
If you are retiring, that means you have worked, which means you have paid tax to pay for your OP
The argument that people MUST reproduce in order to provide tax payers for the future is nullified unless all these kids are going to work and pay taxes and not ending up as a drain on the economy of the future.

You've just made the best argument in the world for giving it to the working parents, as their children, (and we are currently disincentivised from having them) are most likely to work to pay for our retirements, and of course to keep the dolers spawn in the lifestyles to which they have become accustomed.

There should be two rates alright, and I know which group I'd incentivise to have children.

Farmer Pudsey

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I believe we had the highest birthrate in the EU at the last census. Are you suggesting nobody would have a child if it weren't for the child benefit?

No however even though we have the highest in Europe we are just a little above stabilisation rate. The big issue is are we producing enough childern from people that work.

Monife wrote: »

+1.

My husband and I are married 3 years and would like to start a family in the next 3 years however I don't see that happening until we have more savings under our belt, which is becoming increasingly harder with the ever increasing rents.

Child benefit should be means tested.

No this will continue to encourage the feckless

Monife wrote: »

Retirement isn't a choice, it is inevitable. Some people simply would not be able to work once they are of a certain age due to less energy, illness etc. And why should they, having worked all their lives (I am talking about the regular paye worker and not on social welfare for life).

Children are definitely a choice. There is such thing as contraception. For accidents, there is abortion and adoption.

In any society children are not a choice rather they are a necessity. They are potential future tax payers that will pay tax to fund retiree pensions. One of the biggest issue across Europe is too many retirees and too few Children

noodler wrote: »

The two tier Child Benefit payment system suggested by the Expert Group (2012) should be introduced.

It would maintain the universality the Irish people are so fond of for the first payment and only grant the second payment to household incomes below a certain threshold.

It would save a fortune and ensure scare resources are targets where needed most.

I agree two tier system. Standard basic rate 50-70/head/ month. Tax credit payable to workers to fund childcare 70-100/head/month. Any savings to be spend on nutritious meals in schools.

se conman wrote: »

Having a child is a choice.
You either choose to have a child
Or
You choose to ignore the risk of having a child.
If you are retiring, that means you have worked, which means you have paid tax to pay for your OP
The argument that people MUST reproduce in order to provide tax payers for the future is nullified unless all these kids are going to work and pay taxes and not ending up as a drain on the economy of the future.

Yes having a child is a choice but too many working are putting off that choice because of cost,

Gumbo

se conman wrote: »

Having a child is a choice.
You either choose to have a child
Or
You choose to ignore the risk of having a child.
If you are retiring, that means you have worked, which means you have paid tax to pay for your OP
The argument that people MUST reproduce in order to provide tax payers for the future is nullified unless all these kids are going to work and pay taxes and not ending up as a drain on the economy of the future.

If we don't have children, who will pay your pension when you retire?

Victor

Geuze wrote: »

Give tax credits for children, so that workers paying tax are encouraged to have children.

No, this would disproportionately benefit higher tax payers, who don't need it.

The best way to benefit children, especially children in poverty is to provide benefits. Cash benefits are somewhat in disrepute, so free child care and the other direct provision measure mentioned above by Godge are the best way to deliver them. It frees people to work and provides some employment.

mug_holder

its a bad idea but not as bad as restoring the xmas bonus for pensioners , children dont vote and are therefore less of a priority for the goverment in this country than the elderly

any country which values the elderly ahead of the young is not one which has a terrific future

Geuze

Victor wrote: »

No, this would disproportionately benefit higher tax payers, who don't need it.

A 100 euro pm child tax credit would not disproportionately benefit higher earners.

The whole point of tax credits is that they are of equal cash value to all taxpayers.

If I'm on 40k, then that 100pm is worth more to me than to somebody on 100k.

Geuze

Victor wrote: »

The best way to benefit children, especially children in poverty is to provide benefits. Cash benefits are somewhat in disrepute, so free child care and the other direct provision measure mentioned above by Godge are the best way to deliver them. It frees people to work and provides some employment.

Good idea.

Currently my local childcare facility has three prices:

(1) Free if the parents are on social welfare and in receipt of a med card

(2) cheap, subsidised, if in receipt of a med card

(3) full price for all other people

So unemployed parents, who by definition have the time to mind their own kids, get free childcare, while workers pay.

LUNACY.

The prices must be reversed.

Workers must always be the priority.

Workers must get better unemployment payments, better pensions, and cheaper childcare than non-workers.

In Ireland, we tend to reward non-workers.

We need to always reward work.

ezra_pound

Idbatterim wrote: »

right and we dont give it to the ones who have no childcare costs and are paying no taxes? or are you implying, the ones going out and working, often paying 52% and struggling should have it curtailed? Giving another incentive not to work?

Nobody is paying 52%tax

ezra_pound

Victor wrote: »

No, this would disproportionately benefit higher tax payers, who don't need it.

The best way to benefit children, especially children in poverty is to provide benefits. Cash benefits are somewhat in disrepute, so free child care and the other direct provision measure mentioned above by Godge are the best way to deliver them. It frees people to work and provides some employment.

Not very fair on single income families with one parent looking after kids

Victor

Geuze wrote: »

The whole point of tax credits is that they are of equal cash value to all taxpayers.

Tax credits, as structured, only benefit those paying income tax. They don't benefit low earners.

ezra_pound wrote: »

Not very fair on single income families with one parent looking after kids

Free / low cost child care allows both parents to work.

If we think about it, school is a de facto form of child care and is only free from age 3-18.

robp

Monife wrote: »

Retirement isn't a choice, it is inevitable. Some people simply would not be able to work once they are of a certain age due to less energy, illness etc. And why should they, having worked all their lives (I am talking about the regular paye worker and not on social welfare for life).

Children are definitely a choice. There is such thing as contraception. For accidents, there is abortion and adoption.

Children are a necessity for society and its utterly bonkers to incentivise childlessness by stripping away child benefit. For the record I wouldn't support increasing child benefit in this budget but a form of child benefit, tax advantage or direct provision has its place.

ezra_pound

Victor wrote: »

Tax credits, as structured, only benefit those paying income tax. They don't benefit low earners.

Free / low cost child care allows both parents to work.

If we think about it, school is a de facto form of child care and is only free from age 3-18.

Do you not think that there's already enough incentives for both parents to work?

What about the special role of women in the family?

Padraig Mor

Idbatterim wrote: »

in fairness, the people we want to have kids are having less or not at all due to taking responsibility and financial worries, the ones we don't want having kids pump them out, safe in the knowledge, that the responsible classes will carry their own burden and that of others. How do you change a system and mentality that is rotten to the core?

+1. We should be incentivising productive members of society to have children, and strongly discouraging the welfare class. Child benefit should be replaced with tax credits, and childcare costs allowable against tax. Strong parental leave legislation similar to other countries should also be introduced to allow a parent 'hold' a job for a number of years while they raise young children.

Victor

ezra_pound wrote: »

Do you not think that there's already enough incentives for both parents to work?

There are still obstacles to work, child care being a big one.

What about the special role of women in the family?

This is seen as both aspirational and antiquated.

BeepBeep67

Could the Children's allowance not just be raised by the lower tax rate (+20%) and then be paid as salary but make it exempt from USC.
Those receiving benefits, get a 20% increase.
Those on the lower rate remain unaffected.
Those on the higher rate, take a hit.

Farmer Pudsey

Padraig Mor wrote: »

+1. We should be incentivising productive members of society to have children, and strongly discouraging the welfare class. Child benefit should be replaced with tax credits, and childcare costs allowable against tax. Strong parental leave legislation similar to other countries should also be introduced to allow a parent 'hold' a job for a number of years while they raise young children.

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

Could the Children's allowance not just be raised by the lower tax rate (+20%) and then be paid as salary but make it exempt from USC.
Those receiving benefits, get a 20% increase.
Those on the lower rate remain unaffected.
Those on the higher rate, take a hit.

Any increase in CB should be targetd towards workers. The cost of going to work is huge when you have children. In most other countries CB rate is low but tax credits are used to help towards creche costs or these costs are subsidised.

V.W.L 11

the way this country is going I am sorry I came off welfare!the spongers have it too easy/too good!and here is me and thousands of others who cant afford to go outside the front door while the spongers do it left right and centre!time to adopt the german welfare system here!get a job or be cut off!i'm sick to death of struggling financially whilst seeing people queuing at the post office,the very same people more than likely never have nor will ever contribute to society.rant over...................

Idbatterim

when the FG politicians come looking for votes, they are going to get it full on from me, I wouldnt waste my breath on the rest of the parties, and there is no alternative to FG at the moment unfortunately... Its only now that they are getting some room for manouevre, so maybe I am jumping the gun a bit, but they may well throw Labour a bone, as they will be their favored coalition partner (assuming FG win the most seats).

This is where the problem comes in, they may be forced to do things now, that they dont want to, but are forced into, for want of a better word to "buy" the election, its a delicate balancing act trying to do that and damage the economy as little as possible. But whats the alternative, do best solely for the economy and have the other economic illiterates walk back in and FG being a martyr?

V.W.L 11

Idbatterim wrote: »

when the FG politicians come looking for votes, they are going to get it full on from me, I wouldnt waste my breath on the rest of the parties, and there is no alternative to FG at the moment unfortunately... Its only now that they are getting some room for manouevre, so maybe I am jumping the gun a bit, but they may well throw Labour a bone, as they will be their favored coalition partner (assuming FG win the most seats).

This is where the problem comes in, they may be forced to do things now, that they dont want to, but are forced into, for want of a better word to "buy" the election, its a delicate balancing act trying to do that and damage the economy as little as possible. But whats the alternative, do best solely for the economy and have the other economic illiterates walk back in and FG being a martyr?

Agree with you on that,but what people wont remember is that they will use budget 2015 & 2016 to "buy" the next general election,then once elected more spending cuts/tax increases/new taxes introduced,its a constant circle,just ask Fianna Fail

Idbatterim

FF just throw the money at everyone, no questions asked, regardless of merit. Labour attack the paymasters that keep the ship afloat, ultimately damaging everyone. SF a few of their policies are not bad, but ultimately they would do more damage than good IMO. FG are by far the most responsible, the fact they are deemed "right wing" here, shows you the Irish definition or interpretation of it!

V.W.L 11

Idbatterim wrote: »

FF just throw the money at everyone, no questions asked, regardless of merit. Labour attack the paymasters that keep the ship afloat, ultimately damaging everyone. SF a few of their policies are not bad, but ultimately they would do more damage than good IMO. FG are by far the most responsible, the fact they are deemed "right wing" here, shows you the Irish definition or interpretation of it!

FF if reinstated would do it all over again,the old guard are making a come back of sorts looking to re-enter the dail.SF i'm divided on,but the opinion poll today makes interesting reading thugh,level with FG,Labour on the other hand will sell out to anyone to keep their feet under the cabinet table.

Packrat

Idbatterim wrote: »

FF just throw the money at everyone, no questions asked, regardless of merit. Labour attack the paymasters that keep the ship afloat, ultimately damaging everyone. SF a few of their policies are not bad, but ultimately they would do more damage than good IMO. FG are by far the most responsible, the fact they are deemed "right wing" here, shows you the Irish definition or interpretation of it!

No FF lover here, and whilst I'd agree with most of your viewpoints, to be fair, FG, and Labour were decrying a LACK of spending during the last FF government.

To say otherwise is revisionism - which this govt is very good at.

I agree that there is little choice, its either the "we were bullied for 20 years and now it's our turn" of FG or we forgive FF. The rest belong in the looney bin.

The corruption and clientalism of this government sickens me, but FF need more punishment before we let them back in.

Monife

robp wrote: »

Children are a necessity for society and its utterly bonkers to incentivise childlessness by stripping away child benefit. For the record I wouldn't support increasing child benefit in this budget but a form of child benefit, tax advantage or direct provision has its place.

Where did I say child benefit should be removed/reduced? I said it should be means tested. People earning more than €50,000 don't need child benefit. I think it should be means tested and increased for workers.

Farmer Pudsey

Monife wrote: »

Where did I say child benefit should be removed/reduced? I said it should be means tested. People earning more than €50,000 don't need child benefit. I think it should be means tested and increased for workers.

A couple earning 50K are not exactly on the pigs back. This is the issue with means testing it is usually set too and acts as a discentive to workers. On top of that it can often be abused as people cohabbiting etc can work around means testing. Taxing it raised the same issue.

It should be a universal benifit accross all sections and general taxation is then used to level the pitch. Single parent allowance had the same issue attached as people who recive it are not inclined to enter relationships because of it. It is very hard to restrict benifits by means testing withou creating income traps that discentive work.

Also those just above 50K are those that struggle most to put there children through 3rd level

FreudianSlippers

robp wrote: »

Children are a necessity for society and its utterly bonkers to incentivise childlessness by stripping away child benefit. For the record I wouldn't support increasing child benefit in this budget but a form of child benefit, tax advantage or direct provision has its place.

Is there any evidence that removing child benefit increases childlessness?

BoJack Horseman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Is there any evidence that removing child benefit increases childlessness?

Until its removed you can never know.

So its a pointless query.

Farmer Pudsey

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Is there any evidence that removing child benefit increases childlessness?

Workers tend to more worry about cost of children that those that do not work. If you follow threads and general media, those that work often quote this as a factor in there deciding to or not to having children.