Cut to child benifit for people earning over 100k to help fund childcare

sexmag

Can you see it working?

Of all the latest proposels by the government i believe its taking a step in the right direction.

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/cut-child-benefit-to-fund-childcare-doherty-begins-to-look-at-households-with-incomes-over-100k-36978212.html

Mongfinder General

sexmag wrote: »

Can you see it working?

Of all the latest proposels by the government i believe its taking a step in the right direction.

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/cut-child-benefit-to-fund-childcare-doherty-begins-to-look-at-households-with-incomes-over-100k-36978212.html

Unearned income needs to be taxed. That means those on welfare should be subject to same taxes on income as those that work for it. Sure, they’re on social welfare so the tax will be little or nothing, right?

Cordell

Definitely a step in the right direction. That is, replace the child benefit with a 1700E tax credit.

Phoebas

Once they get rid of the universality of the payment it'll be easy to tweak it in subsequent budgets.

100k this year, then 80, 60 ...

Fann Linn

I look forward in anticipation of FG cutting off their nose to spite their face.

It'll never happen.

Allinall

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Unearned income needs to be taxed. That means those on welfare should be subject to same taxes on income as those that work for it. Sure, they’re on social welfare do the tax will be little or nothing, right?

The vast majority of unearned income is already taxed.

araic88

I don't live in Dublin but two parents there earning 50k gross each wouldn't be uncommon I'd imagine? Yet most seem squeezed enough as it is.
I'd just hope it doesn't end up in private childcare becoming even *more* expensive.

Mongfinder General

Allinall wrote: »

The vast majority of unearned income is already taxed.[/quote

Not enough of it. Not nearly enough.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/mother-would-require-120k-salary-to-make-amount-she-receives-in-state-benefits-court-hears-36497788.html

no.8

sexmag wrote:

Of all the latest proposels by the government i believe its taking a step in the right direction.

Imo the greatest contributers are more entitled to that support than anyone else (regardless of whether or not they need it). A bitter blow like that would turn many away...through the principle of the motion alone

Tefral

My missus is the manager of a shop and she was telling me theres a marked increase in spending on cigarettes and general ****e on childrens allowance days.

She has a friend that works in a betting office and its the same there.

So its not only higher incomes this is wasted on its most certainly not used correctly by all..

sexmag

araic88 wrote: »

I don't live in Dublin but two parents there earning 50k gross each wouldn't be uncommon I'd imagine? Yet most seem squeezed enough as it is.
I'd just hope it doesn't end up in private childcare becoming even *more* expensive.

it doesnt actually say gross tax so this could be net tax which i would then 100% agree with. If a couple are coming out with 100k between them after tax they certinaly should be getting child benifit or at least have a good portion reduced

sexmag

no.8 wrote: »

Imo the greatest contributers are more entitled to that support than anyone else (regardless of whether or not they need it). A bitter blow like that would turn many away...through the principle of the motion alone

Pay more so you get more out of it? The tax is used to help the people who need it more.

I wont go into scroungers and people caught in the dole trap as its beating to deaht in these forums but genuine people rely on it more because they need it more

Heres Johnny

People being punished for doing well again if this happens. Also some other article in indo about public support for a 3rd tax bracket of 60% or something for high earners.
Real case of I don't want to pay tax but I want anyone earning more than me to pay my share.
Where's the incentive to earn more if it's just eaten up in tax.

Cee-Jay-Cee

So what about those families who choose welfare and have numerous children?

A working couple earning in excess of €100k in reality take home roughly half of it after tax, PRSI etc etc They then pay mortgage, education, medical fees etc etc whereas the people on benefits and get rent allowance, free education, free medical cover etc etc and so have considerably more disposable income than those working, yet no doubt will be exempt any cuts to child benefit!

Fann Linn

Tefral wrote: »

My missus is the manager of a shop and she was telling me theres a marked increase in spending on cigarettes and general ****e on childrens allowance days.

She has a friend that works in a betting office and its the same there.

So its not only higher incomes this is wasted on its most certainly not used correctly by all..

Some people buy smokes and back horses, others probably put it into buying cars or investing.

'One man's meat....', and all that.

Fanny Wank

Heres Johnny wrote: »

Also some other article in indo about public support for a 3rd tax bracket of 60% or something for high earners.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that anyone who agrees it's a good idea won't be paying it

Uriel.

Depends really. Why does this benefit exist? How much of an impact will it have on birth rates if it was to be removed and how much impact will it have on employment opportunities/uptake for both parents. Will it impact on the equality agenda.

Not sure how much child benefit's existence impacts on birth rates for people thinking of having children and earning over 100k. In truth, I'd have imagined these are the kind of people you'd want to be encouraging to have more children rather than, say, for example, families with no income other than welfare income. Depends entirely on the vision for the future though.

Mongfinder General

sexmag wrote: »

it doesnt actually say gross tax so this could be net tax which i would then 100% agree with. If a couple are coming out with 100k between them after tax they certinaly should be getting child benifit or at least have a good portion reduced

It’ll be €100k gross. 2% of households have an income above €200k which is 112k net. Even if these households have kids the saving will be neglible

Your Face

Easy targets.
Just because you can pay doesn't mean you should.
Proposals like this kill ambition and tax the successful.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fann Linn

Put the money, child allowance, into totally free school books and ancillary educational services a la Northern Ireland for every child from birth to 18.

I'd hazard a guess and say it would probably save the state some money and do away with back to school allowances etc etc, and also insure that the kids are getting an equal footing in life.

sbsquarepants

Firstly - It's never going to happen - you hear the same shíte over and over, this must be my 3rd or 4th time to hear this one. No government wants to be the one who takes the food out of the poor starving kiddies mouths - even if in reality it goes on blue wkd and morning after pills.

Secondly - The country needs kids and lots of them - they tend to grow up and become adults, work and pay tax to keep the whole country running. It's economic suicide to de-incentivise people having kids.

Thirdly - if it wasn't for mickey money night how the hell would ugly or socially inept people ever get laid. First Tuesday is a 100% guarantee of scoring - quasi modo ain't going home alone on mickey money night.

beertons

Cap allowance at 3 kids.

Heres Johnny

Fanny **** wrote: »

Heres Johnny wrote: »

Also some other article in indo about public support for a 3rd tax bracket of 60% or something for high earners.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that anyone who agrees it's a good idea won't be paying it

You would be correct there.
Here's the article

https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/latest-news/most-workers-are-in-favour-of-higher-income-taxes-but-just-for-those-with-big-salaries-36978228.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bellview

What also about capping number of children that qualify for allowance. Can phase in over a 15 year period so that cap comes down every year. Cap at 3 or 4 children would be my view

Massive step in the wrong direction, middle income and higher earners are robbed in taxes and this is the one thing they actually get back no way should it be cut or reduced.

There needs to be a reduction in taxes in general for middle income and higher earners as they are expected to pay far too much of their hard earned money over to fund layabouts. They also have to spend money on things like childcare which of course layabouts do not.

Also 100k gross family income is far from a high earner it's a very middle of the road income for two people especially if it's in Dublin.

no.8

Paid more so you get the SAME out of it. Yes, wonderful, it's too help people who need it but how do you analyze that? Is that based purely on overall earnings? Or do we look into how much they actually pay for what they have (e.g
If they have dik all rent and freebies then they don't need it). You do realise that there is already a higher tax band and the middle earners are being seriously squeezed.

As previous poster said: What is the incentive for having ambition / talent / perseverance in this country with this proposed tax (and it is a tax) comes in. Certain members or our society give feck all back but seem to be doing quite nicely (laughing in our faces). Maybe, maybe we should be making more effort to combat fraud and not tell the next generation in school that 'heh don't get too far ahead of yourself, you'll be no better off than the worst in the class no matter what you do'

vandriver

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

So what about those families who choose welfare and have numerous children?

A working couple earning in excess of €100k in reality take home roughly half of it after tax, PRSI etc etc They then pay mortgage, education, medical fees etc etc whereas the people on benefits and get rent allowance, free education, free medical cover etc etc and so have considerably more disposable income than those working, yet no doubt will be exempt any cuts to child benefit!

In reality,you've made the half deductions up.Its not true.
It's nearer 25% for a 2 income couple

erica74

How about they cap the allowance at 2 or 3 children? This would probably help reduce the amount of children being conceived by people who cannot afford to pay for them themselves.

sbsquarepants

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And against me...... so down with that sort of thing:mad:

Cap it at 4, I'm fine with that.

Also - just realised tonight is the night - scoops anybody?:D