Cut children's allowance after 3 kids

TOMs WIFE

Perhaps a once off 5k for voluntary sterilisation. There'll be a few queues for the cash from certain sections of society, but think of the longterm reduction in cost to Govt of children's allowance!

Deebles McBeebles

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

Perhaps a once off 5k for voluntary sterilisation. There'll be a few queues for the cash from certain sections of society, but think of the longterm reduction in cost to Govt of children's allowance!

Interesting thought and something that could be rolled out worldwide to help with the various issues of the modern day. You'll be branded a monster for suggesting it but I'd certainly take the offer, as would my partner.

One eyed Jack

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

Perhaps a once off 5k for voluntary sterilisation. There'll be a few queues for the cash from certain sections of society, but think of the longterm reduction in cost to Govt of children's allowance!

Are you referring to the people who refer to themselves as “the squeezed middle” who expect Government should subsidise their childcare for children that they chose to have, knowing that they wouldn’t be able to afford their childcare?

Children that don’t exist would have no bearing on the cost of providing childcare for children that do exist.

atticu

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They don’t have large families for any monetary gain, but rather for the sole and simple reason that they place more value in family than they do in money.

You are assuming motivation based upon your own mindset, not theirs.

Deebles McBeebles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Children that don’t exist would have no bearing on the cost of providing childcare for children that do exist.

Course not, but in the long term it would reduce numbers. Lessen the demand and the price falls.

Dial Hard

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Are you referring to the people who refer to themselves as “the squeezed middle” who expect Government should subsidise their childcare for children that they chose to have, knowing that they wouldn’t be able to afford their childcare?

Given their thanks history in this thread, I suspect they were being sarcastic.

Shefwedfan

Means test, not allow any children unless you can afford it

Simple as that.....

One eyed Jack

atticu wrote: »

You are assuming motivation based upon your own mindset, not theirs.

I’m not at all. Not once have I ever heard from anyone that their motivation for having children was because it would allow them to apply for child benefit. Ive always been told by people themselves it’s simply because they love children and family means more to them than money.

Cina

marieholmfan wrote: »

Catholics are not supposed to use contraception.

Oh ok, you're a troll. Good luck to you.

Cina

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not at all. Not once have I ever heard from anyone that their motivation for having children was because it would allow them to apply for child benefit. Ive always been told by people themselves it’s simply because they love children and family means more to them than money.

Right, because someone is going to openly admit that they have kids because of the child benefits, aren't they? It's not like that would make them look like a terrible per.. oh wait.

jjmcclure

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m absolutely certain that it’s not a minority who pay for everything in this State. Don’t go patting yourself on the back just yet.





That’s all you’d be doing about anyone else’s circumstances but your own, is guessing. It’s easy to see now why you think it a good idea to encourage middle income households to have more children than they decide they can afford because other people have more children than you think they can afford, like one has any bearing on the other.

Your idea would just create plenty more of the types of families you’re rallying against now, only much faster.

In 2017 36.6% of all income earners paid no income tax? Those to 10/20% of earners BY FAR pay the lions share of all income tax

One eyed Jack

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Course not, but in the long term it would reduce numbers. Lessen the demand and the price falls.

In reality due to the fact the State would be in violation of human rights laws, it wouldn’t be a runner anyway, but even then there is no evidence that your proposal actually would result in a reduction in the numbers of children born, and there’s no evidence either that the demand for the provision of childcare or the costs of providing said childcare would decrease. If anything, the cost of providing for childcare is only going one way - up! And that’s why if we look at historical trends from another first world country like the US - more and more women are actually dropping out of the labour market due to the rising costs of childcare, healthcare and housing.

One eyed Jack

jjmcclure wrote: »

In 2017 36.6% of all income earners paid no income tax? Those to 10/20% of earners BY FAR pay the lions share of all income tax

I’m not disputing that. I was disputing your claim that a minority of people pay for everything in this country. As evidenced by the statistics you yourself provided - clearly they don’t. And it’s not even close as the total income tax as a fraction of total Revenue was about one third, with the other two thirds coming from various other sources.

One eyed Jack

Cina wrote: »

Right, because someone is going to openly admit that they have kids because of the child benefits, aren't they? It's not like that would make them look like a terrible per.. oh wait.

I expect they’re quite aware how foolish they’d sound, rather like anyone who would assume people have children for any sort of financial gain.

Deebles McBeebles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In reality due to the fact the State would be in violation of human rights laws, it wouldn’t be a runner anyway, but even then there is no evidence that your proposal actually would result in a reduction in the numbers of children born, and there’s no evidence either that the demand for the provision of childcare or the costs of providing said childcare would decrease. If anything, the cost of providing for childcare is only going one way - up! And that’s why if we look at historical trends from another first world country like the US - more and more women are actually dropping out of the labour market due to the rising costs of childcare, healthcare and housing.

I can totally see the violation of human rights and we don't want to be like China but if its voluntary and not focused at any level of society, why not let people choose?
That would surely lead to more women in the labour force and less in the labour ward.

atticu

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not at all. Not once have I ever heard from anyone that their motivation for having children was because it would allow them to apply for child benefit. Ive always been told by people themselves it’s simply because they love children and family means more to them than money.

LOL
I have always been told by people themselves that it is simply because they love the child benefits.

One eyed Jack

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

I can totally see the violation of human rights and we don't want to be like China but if its voluntary and not focused at any level of society, why not let people choose?
That would surely lead to more women in the labour force and less in the labour ward.

Well for a number of reasons, even voluntary sterilisation is almost impossible in this country, just ask any woman who’s ever tried to avail of it, and the medical community wouldn’t even entertain a woman under 30 who wanted to opt for elective sterilisation. That’s even taking the unethical €5k bribe from the State out of the equation. I wouldn’t be happy to be contributing to State-sponsored sterilisation. If people wanted to opt for it themselves, and wanted to pay for it themselves, then I personally would have no issue with that. Coercion on the other hand, is just exploitation.

I’m not sure it would lead to what you’re suggesting either. If one person were to choose sterilisation (and I do often wonder why the focus is solely a woman’s responsibility and not something that should also be suggested for men who choose to have children with gay abandon and abdicate all responsibility for the welfare of their children), then that’s just one person who has the opportunity to enter the labour market, whereas that still leaves the issue of all the other women (and men) who refuse to be sterilised and instead choose to have children and have no interest in entering the labour market.

The problem really remains that in a free society where individuals generally have autonomy over themselves and their own bodies and their own lifestyle choices, we’ve enabled that society to exist, because what we had before was deemed to be worse. I for one at least wouldn’t want society to regress to a time when people living in poverty were considered unfit for society, undesirables, etc, which is why I’m relieved that the craw thumpers on these kinds of threads are in a minority in terms of their influence over Irish society.

One eyed Jack

atticu wrote: »

LOL
I have always been told by people themselves that it is simply because they love the child benefits.

It comes as a surprise to nobody that we would have different experiences.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Plenty of people have babies because they want them, without giving any thought to where the babies will sleep or what the babies will eat/wear.
It’s all well and good loving children but there wouldn’t be as much “loving” if people were assumed responsible for any life they created.

TOMs WIFE

atticu wrote: »

LOL
I have always been told by people themselves that it is simply because they love the child benefits.

Yep me too.

Senature

Wow, that information from the Citizens Advice Centre is mind boggling, that's crazy money to just hand out. Child benefit payments have increased massively over the past 20 years. Approx 25 years ago, it was £15 per month. I think it now needs to be pared back in favour of providing other benefits such as low cost / free healthcare for all children, childcare support both in and out of the home and education that is actually free. Things that benefit the children's well-being and society as a whole, rather than purely cash handouts.

As an example benefits could be reduced to something like:
€100 per month for all kids aged under 3
€80 age 3-5
€60 age 6-15
€40 age 16+
+ €250 once in a lifetime payment for the first child only towards buggy, cot, high chair etc. Can be doubled in the case of multiple births. Abolish all other one off special assistance type payments from welfare in relation to these types of expenses.
+ Double payments for all every December
+ €250 payment for age 3+ every August and abolish all other back to school assistance payments
Unexplained inadequate school or college attendance results in loss of annual €250 payment, or payment is recouped via tax credit / welfare deduction
"Normal" monthly payments capped at €300 per month

The suggestions above are based on the reality of trying to work while having children. Children aged up to 3 will either have a parent at home, working very reduced hours, or working full time and paying for childcare. At age 3 the childcare subsidy kicks in to help with this. At age 5 the child will be in school so the parent is more free to work and childcare would need to be paid only for the afternoon most of the time. At age 16, the child has no need for any type of childcare, has hopefully completed their Junior Cert, and can get some type of casual work at weekends or on school holidays to earn their own pocket money etc. It also makes sense that if a child has a significant special needs and needs constant care, the €100 per month payment should not reduce as they get older.

One eyed Jack

Senature wrote: »

The suggestions above are based on the reality of trying to work while having children.

I'm not going to be rude, but your figures don't actually appear to be based in reality at all, but rather seem to be figures you came up with off the top of your head based upon a combination of your own circumstances, and your lack of knowledge of other peoples circumstances. If it helps your calculations, I can provide you with some facts and figures from the CSO to give you some proper data to work with based upon national statistics?

• The employment rate for women who were lone parents or were part of a couple and who were aged 20-44 years was 67.6%, well below the male rate of 88.3%.
• The rate for women varied from 85.7% for women with no children to just 60% for women whose youngest child was aged between 4 and 5 years of age, a difference of 25.7 percentage points.
• In contrast, the employment rate for men with no children was 89.1% while the rate for men whose youngest child was aged 6 or over was 83.9%.
• Lone parents had lower employment rates than parents in couples.
• Male lone parents whose youngest child was aged 6 or over had an employment rate of 58.5%, 26.5 percentage points lower than for a man in a couple.
• The employment rate for female lone parents whose youngest child was aged 3 or under was 45.6% which was 21.3 percentage points lower than for a women in a couple.
• Just over half (51.5%) of women aged 15 years and over were in the labour force (at work or unemployed) in 2016, a slight increase on the proportion from 2006 of 50.2%.
• The proportion of men in the labour force over the same time period dropped from 72.7% to 67.8%.
• More than half (54.5%) of those who were at work in 2016 were men while over two-thirds (67.5%) of people who were unemployed were men
• Nearly all of the people (98%) who were looking after home or family in 2016 were women although the number of men in this grouping nearly doubled in the ten years up to 2016, rising from 4,900 to 9,200.
• In 2015 47.9% of women in Ireland were at risk of poverty before income from pensions and social transfers was taken into account, compared with 44.6% of men.
• The at risk of poverty rate after social transfers and pensions was 16.4% for women and 16.1% for men.
• The at risk of poverty rate for both men and women aged 18 and over in Ireland rose slightly between 2010 and 2015 from 14% to 15%.
• People in employment had a lower at risk of poverty rate with a rate of 6% for men and 4% for women in 2015.
• The highest at risk of poverty rates were for people who were unemployed with a rate of 39% for both men and women in 2015.
• More than nine out of ten lone parents were women in 2016 and this proportion has remained stable over the period 2006 to 2016.
• The number of women living as lone parents increased by 14.6% from 115,600 to 132,500 between 2006 and 2016.
• The number of men living as lone parents rose by more than a quarter (27.7%) from 10,100 in 2006 to 12,900 by 2016.
• More than nine out of ten lone parents were women in 2016.
• The youngest child was aged under 10 for 57.1% of women living as lone parents.
• For 38% of male lone parents, the age of the youngest child was aged under 10 years and for the same proportion of male lone parents the age of the youngest child was between 15 and 19 years.
• The vast majority (98.9%) of the 40,317 persons in receipt of one-parent family payments in 2016 were women.
• Just under one in five (18.6%) of the women receiving the one-parent family payment was aged under 25 years.
• The average income liable for social insurance for women in 2016 was three-quarters of men's with average income for women of €26,649 compared to €35,766 for men.
• Men were more likely to have income of €50,000 or over with 21.4% of men and 13.3% of women in this income band. Nearly half (48.5%) of women had income under €20,000 compared to 39.6% of men.

Sources:
Employment, Social Cohesion and Lifestyles - Central Statistics Office.

andekwarhola

dotsman wrote: »

Nowhere - welfare kids generally become welfare adults.

Given that they supposedly all have 65 kids, surely the whole country would have been slowly over bred and everybody would be the dole by now

hurler32

Don't think Pavee Point would like this idea....Travellers are collecting huge benefits with large familys 8 to ten children who ten go on to have 8 to children. 40 years ago we had one traveller family come to our town, now theres circa 400 travellers kids-grandkids-greatgrandkids ( none of whom work)from that one couple

Our local post office pays their childrens allowance in 100 Euro notes as they complained 50 euro notes was too bulky!

Senature

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If it helps your calculations, I can provide you with some facts and figures from the CSO to give you some proper data to work with based upon national statistics?

You posted a lot of information, but I'm not sure what your point is exactly. To clarify, most of my point is to restructure child benefit in a way that I think would provide more assistance when it is more badly needed, along with placing some limit on the amount that is given to individual parents as was the original point on this thread.

Currently child benefit is €1680 per year per child. What I was suggesting would work out as follows each year.
Age 0-1 €1550
Age 1-2 €1300
Age 3-5 €1290
Age 6-15 €1030
Age 16+ €770

This focuses the majority of the benefit on the early years, which is the time when both parents and child need the most financial support. As I said, the savings made should be put towards free education and subsidised health care and childcare, which in turn, should reduce the ongoing financial burden on parents. This is already happening in the last few years with the introduction of free gp care, subsidised childcare etc.

If one parent family payments, or the additional social welfare payments for dependents, or lone parent tax credits etc are too low, that is a different issue. Personally I think the whole system needs an overhaul. There is a massive difference between a parent who is raising a child or children with no other parental support financial or otherwise compared to someone who is their child's primary carer but who receives regular, decent maintenance and the child is with the other parent a few days per week.

Finally, no need to get personal about commenting on my circumstances. I'm just making a suggestion. There's several pages of this thread where others have done the same?

sbsquarepants

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

Cut children's allowance after 3 kids.
Any more it's your choice, like Sky Sports.
It encourages people who shouldn't have more, and those who really can't afford more, to have more.

Allowance for 9th kid? Crazy. We'd see a little more restraint and more room in Garda Station waiting rooms if it was stopped.

Where the 1st 3 forced on you or something? They are all a choice.

Also to quote Whitney Hueston - I believe the children are the future.

Newsflash - The country needs children being born - they're the little people who will pay your pension when you're older, or did you think the government kept some of your tax money in your own little piggy bank with your name on it till the day you retire?

begbysback wrote: »

Is this law suggested to avoid another generation of the Corrs?

The lady corrs were ok, Jim went a bit off the rails, but that was likely a result of years of suppressing inappropriate thoughts god love him:D

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

No we don’t. At the rate automation is going, these kids will end up unemployed.

Bollox.

We've been hearing that exact same bullshít since the industrial revolution!

marieholmfan

Some of the posters here should have served with Cromwell's Roundheads! They plan to exterminate the Irish race!

sbsquarepants

Cina wrote: »

Right, because someone is going to openly admit that they have kids because of the child benefits, aren't they? It's not like that would make them look like a terrible per.. oh wait.

I'm guessing you don't have kids.

If and when you do, you'll realise how ridiculous a proposition it is that someone would have a child just so they can claim the childrens allowance. And even assuming there was someone out there stupid enough to do it - I can guarantee it would be a mistake they'd only make once!

weldoninhio

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m absolutely certain that it’s not a minority who pay for everything in this State. Don’t go patting yourself on the back just yet.





That’s all you’d be doing about anyone else’s circumstances but your own, is guessing. It’s easy to see now why you think it a good idea to encourage middle income households to have more children than they decide they can afford because other people have more children than you think they can afford, like one has any bearing on the other.

Your idea would just create plenty more of the types of families you’re rallying against now, only much faster.

10% of the population of Ireland pay 90% of the tax.

jay0109

hurler32 wrote: »

Don't think Pavee Point would like this idea....Travellers are collecting huge benefits with large familys 8 to ten children who ten go on to have 8 to children. 40 years ago we had one traveller family come to our town, now theres circa 400 travellers kids-grandkids-greatgrandkids ( none of whom work)from that one couple

Our local post office pays their childrens allowance in 100 Euro notes as they complained 50 euro notes was too bulky!

And yet the last 2 sets of census results have shown Travellers around the 30,000 mark
How the CSO can stand over those numbers with a straight face is beyond me