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

GreeBo

Heres Johnny wrote: »

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.

I think punished is a bit strong.
Don't look at it as being taken from you, rather than its given to someone else.

However, I think what it can be spent on should be tightly controlled. A-la food stamps, or childrens clothes. Stamps being much easier to control.

We need to widen the tax net so that more people pay less, not less people pay more.
I dont see an issue with a 3rd bracket but it would need to kick in above 200K.
Again, make sure *everyone* is paying something before you try to cream off the top 2%.

sbsquarepants

Small bit of childrens allowance trivia -

A mate of mine just had twins.

You get paid for 3 kids if you have twins. Not sure why?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

vandriver

erica74 wrote: »

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.

It's more kids we need.Who else is going to pay your state pension?

jester77

100k is not a large household income.

All this will do is force one or both partners to work part time to bring down their income to below 100k.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dudara

Perhaps they could change it from a "cash in hand" payment to a tax credit. Or another non-cash form of support.

€100k isn't actually all that much when it comes to a 2-3 child family with 2 working parents who live in Dublin or other expensive areas.

GreeBo

erica74 wrote: »

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.

I don't think the sort of people who see social welfare as a life choice really think about things in the same way that you and I would.

They'd still have 6 kids and it would still be someone elses problem.

sbsquarepants

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You can use my address..... be grand!;)

sbsquarepants

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're sitting on a gold mine there!

Just think of all the smokes and 2 quid Yankees you could get in paddy powers with a kitty like that. Get your arse on a plane pronto!

Parents on 50k each likely paying a mortgage and creche fees or something, seems a very low bar. Bit of a blunt instrument, surely a better way of going about things

vandriver

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You're sitting on a gold mine there!

Just think of all the smokes and 2 quid Yankees you could get in paddy powers with a kitty like that. Get your arse on a plane pronto!

Pity they're not triplets!
They get double.

steddyeddy

Heres Johnny wrote: »

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.

Punishing people for doing well. I never heard such whinging. People born into lower socio-economic groups suffer from poorer health, lower quality education, far higher stress and less chance succeed in life. Yet the people doing well are being punished with a higher tax. Despite the fact that VAT disproportionately hits those on lower incomes.

Tax is never going to be 100% fair. We can share the tax burden so it doesn't focus exclusively on the top half and doesn't increase the already huge financial burden on lower income families and individuals.

I have to end by saying that as someone from a really poor family, a passion for what I do and real ambition in life a higher tax band doesn't and didn't act as a disincentive to me working hard.

If I actually heard someone being put off education, hard work or being ambitious because of a higher tax band I'd say they were a waste of space anyway.

Tell me should the minimum wage act as a disincentive to hard work?

steddyeddy

bluewolf wrote: »

Parents on 50k each likely paying a mortgage and creche fees or something, seems a very low bar. Bit of a blunt instrument, surely a better way of going about things

It also depends if the 50k is before or after tax.

Heres Johnny

Heres Johnny wrote: »

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

Ha, i saw that. Tax people more just not me. Rich people pay 50% of overall tax already but tax them more because they have things and i don't wah.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

touts

Yet again in this country the people who pay the most will get the least. €100k means €50,000 each for a couple which isn't what most people would consider "high earner" especially in Dublin. It's above average but we're not talking about the jet set lifestyle. And that's before tax and mortgage repayments consume most of it.

Yes we need better and cheaper childcare but there is little chance that any money saved by taking more money off working people will go to actual childcare for their children. It will be lost in the increasing administration that surrounds childcare. The crèche my kids went to is audited each year by County Child Care, the HSE, Pobal, The Health and Safety Authority, TUSLA and various other state authorities. Cut those back to one overall organisation with one audit & reporting requirement and there is a huge saving straight away both in terms of the army of civil servant administrators and the costs creches incur servicing their constant demands for reports.

Yes child benefit needs to be reformed but I would suggest something like paying it in vouchers that can't be saved for college or spent on booze, bouncy castles and bookies. That way the state can ensure the money is spent on children and is spent immediately thus boosting the economy. It also means the money is spent on real children here in Ireland not on made up children scattered across Eastern Europe.

And what about people with kids who are beyond the crèche stage. Telling a couple that we're taking their child benefit off them so their teenage kids could have had an extra morning a week in a pre-school if only they were young enough is political suicide. If the state wants to help them then adjust the school working hours to fit in with the modern working day not the 1950s working day. Have school start at 10am to 4pm with kids allowed to be dropped off to school from 8:30am and last pickup at 5:30pm when parents can actually pick them up. The extra time either side could be used for sport, homework, study etc. There is a real saving on childcare needs right there. But no. Instead the government still holds to the 1950s belief that a mother should easily be finished her housework in time to be at the school gate at 3pm.

There are many things we could do to reform childcare but yet again the government opt for their default option of taking more money from tax payers now and just throwing it a disfunctional system. Education, Health, Public Transport, Roads and now childcare. The pattern is always the same. Increase tax, spend more, get less.

If we continue to increase the tax burden on working people while at the same time cutting the benefits and services they get for that tax then we are headed for a revolution but not the sort that the pinko left champions of the welfare class are looking for.

Tigerbaby

the 1.5 payment per child for twins was as a result of people having triplets getting DOUBLE children's allowance (ie getting money for 6 kids).

My wife and I ( and many others) campaigned for this with Social Welfare back in the early Nineties. We got great advice and help from a fine Minister-of-State
at that time.

And it was brought into place. Seems a reasonable and just case, and a good example of representative democracy in action.

Fann Linn

bluewolf wrote: »

Ha, i saw that. Tax people more just not me. Rich people pay 50% of overall tax already but tax them more because they have things and i don't wah.

The unions are in favour of this,











.....and surprisingly, so are IBEC.

steddyeddy

We know in the UK the lowest earners (bottom 10%) pay the highest proportion of their income on taxes relative to higher earners. I wonder if it's the same over in Ireland.

The poorest 10 per cent of households in the UK pay a greater proportion of their income in tax than the richest 10 per cent, new analysis has revealed.

Officials statistics show the lowest tenth of earners pay an average of 42 per cent of their income in the form of income tax, national insurance, VAT and council tax.

In contrast, the richest 10 per cent see around a third (34.4 per cent) of their earnings go to the taxman, according to analysis by The Equality Trust.